DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. 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.
3. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claims 1, 3, 4:
An ion optical element
In claims 2, 3
A relay member
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for an “ion optical element” is taken to include any element that can control behavior of ions, such as a quadrupole mass filter, an ion guide, an ion lens, an ion trap, a deflector, or a reflector (according to [0020] in the instant specification).
The corresponding structure in the disclosure for a “relay member” is taken to include a block with holes drilled in the main body through which a cable can pass and be secured (according to [0032] in the instant specification).
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
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1, 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over by Blessing (US 6239429) in view of “Customized, 12 inch Cube Vacuum Chamber, Front Loading, with USB, and Wire Vacuum Feedthrough”, retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJQYVtKnAiA, published 09/02/2020 [hereinafter Sanatron], further in view of Durham, Jerry. "Splicing NM Cable in Walls and Other Concealed Spaces." National Electrical Code, 3 Nov. 2020 [hereinafter Durham].
7. Regarding claim 1:
Blessing teaches a mass spectrometer (col 1 lines 5-10 teaches quadrupole mass spectrometer) comprising:
a chamber forming a vacuum chamber (col 2 lines 55-67 teaches a vacuum chamber);
an ion optical element arranged along an ion optical axis in the chamber (The ion optical element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to include any element that can control behavior of ions, such as a quadrupole mass filter, an ion guide, an ion lens, an ion trap, a deflector, or a reflector. col 3 lines 48-67 and col 4 lines 1-14 teaches a quadruple mass filter that focuses the ions selected by the mass filter. Col 5 lines 31-35 teaches that the retainer block 101 has a central axis of symmetry 103 that defines the central axis of the entire quadrupole mass analyzer);
a power supply line for supplying power to the ion optical element from a power source arranged outside the chamber (col 6 lines 1-12 teaches an external power supply that drives the filter assembly. As shown in fig. 2a the filter assembly establishes electrical communication via conductive pin 203a, 203b. Although fig. 2a shows 203c, it actually means 203a); and
a cable connecting the power supply line and the ion optical element (col 3 lines 48-67 and col 4 lines 1-14 teaches electrical connection with RF lead 202a/202b, that in turn connects to a conductive pin 203a, 203b, which extends through the vacuum feed-through 204),
PNG
media_image1.png
731
989
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Blessing fails to teach that wherein an opening is formed in at least a portion of wall surfaces of the chamber, excluding upper and lower surfaces, through which the ion optical element can be inserted and removed in and from the chamber and a side lid is provided to cover the opening.
Sanatron teaches a vacuum chamber with a side door that covers an opening formed in at least a portion of wall surfaces of the chamber through. Any element can enter the chamber through the opening and be connected to the feedthrough line (see Sanatron at timestamp 0:20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blessing’s vacuum chamber to include an opening and a door that covers the opening through which any element can be inserted and removed, as taught by Sanatron. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to provide easy access to the interior of the vacuum chamber and connect and disconnect an element from the feedthrough line as suggested by Sanatron.
Blessing in view of Sanatron does not specifically note that wherein a connecting position between the power supply line and the cable and a connecting position between the ion optical element and the cable are set at positions that allow the cable to be removed from the opening with the ion optical element housed in the chamber.
Durham teaches introducing splicing cable connecting different wires to provide access to concealed or hard-to-reach space (pg.1 and pg. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blessing in view of Sanatron, to introduce a splicing cable, as taught by Durham, to connect RF lead 202a and 202b at different connection points for easy access to concealed space. Then, the splicing cable can be taken out of the chamber from the opening as taught in Sanatron. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to give the users the ability to connect electrical circuits to access concealed spaces for maintenance and repair (Durham pg. 1 and pg. 3).
8. Regarding claim 4:
The modified invention above teaches the mass spectrometer as claimed in claim 1. Blessing in view of Sanatron fails to teach that wherein the cable is connected to the ion optical element and the power supply line by a detachable connector.
Durham teaches a detachable connector (pg. 3 teaches NM cable wire splice kit with connector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blessing in view of Sanatron, to introduce a splicing cable and connect different wires with a connector, as taught by Durham. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for accessing and rewiring concealed cables for maintenance and repair (Durham pg. 3-4).
9. Regarding claim 5:
The modified invention above teaches the mass spectrometer as claimed in claim 1. Blessing further teaches that wherein the power supply is disposed adjacent to the chamber outside the chamber (col 6 lines 1-12 teaches that conductive pin 203a, 203b extends through the vacuum feed-through 204, thereby facilitating electrical communication between the rods and an external power supply that drives the filter assembly).
Blessing fails to teach that the power supply is disposed not at a surface side in which the opening is formed.
Sanatron teaches a vacuum chamber where the opening and the wiring connections are on opposite sides (see Sanatron at timestamp 0:20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Blessing in view of Sanatron to include that the power supply is disposed not at a surface side in which the opening is formed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow access to the interior of the chamber without disturbing other wiring components of the vacuum system.
10. Regarding claim 6:
The modified invention above teaches the mass spectrometer as claimed in claim 1. Blessing fails to teach that wherein a portion where the power supply line penetrates the wall surface of the chamber is formed at a position other than a surface side where the opening is formed.
Sanatron teaches a vacuum chamber where the opening and the wiring connections are on opposite sides (see Sanatron at timestamp 0:20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Blessing in view of Sanatron to include that wherein a portion where the power supply line penetrates the wall surface of the chamber is formed at a position other than a surface side where the opening is formed. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow access to the interior of the chamber without disturbing other wiring components of the vacuum system.
11. Regarding claim 7:
The modified invention above teaches the mass spectrometer as claimed in claim 1. Blessing further teaches that wherein the ion optical element is a quadrupole mass filter (col 5 lines 22-25, fig. 2 teach a quadrupole mass analyzer).
12. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over by Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham, further in view of Steiner (US 20140054457).
13. Regarding claim 2:
The modified invention above teaches the mass spectrometer as claimed in claim 1. Blessing further teaches that wherein the power supply line has a separate cable connecting a connector penetrating the wall surface of the chamber (col 3 lines 48-67 and col 4 lines 1-14 teaches electrical connection with RF lead 202a/202b, that in turn connects to a conductive pin 203a, 203b, which extends through the vacuum feed-through 204. The RF leads 202a and 202b are separate components from the conductive pins 203a and 203b).
Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham fails to teach a relay member disposed within the chamber.
However, Steiner teaches a relay member disposed within the chamber (the relay member is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to include a block with holes drilled in the main body through which a cable can be secured. [0004] teaches that the wires 108 connect to a flexible circuit board 114 in the vacuum environment. The flexible circuit board 114 is equivalent to the block that can secure a cable because the flexible circuit board performs the same function in substantially the same way and produces substantially the same result. From flex board 114, RF energy is then distributed to the various rods 116 of the quadrupole mass filter).
PNG
media_image2.png
710
873
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham to include the flexible circuit board, as taught by Steiner, in a vacuum chamber. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification to allow for a flexible configuration of freestanding wires to distribute energy to the various rods of the quadrupole mass filter (Steiner [0004]).
14. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over by Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham, further in view of Steiner, further in view of Rig (US 4050770).
15. Regarding claim 3:
The modified invention above teaches the mass spectrometer as claimed in claim 2. Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham, further in view of Steiner fails to teach that wherein the relay member is disposed between the ion optical element and the opening.
Rigo teaches placing the block that maintains the connection of wires towards the opening of the accessible side (col 2 lines 27-34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham, further in view of Steiner to place the relay member towards the accessible side, as taught by Rigo, and between the opening and the ion optical element. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification so that one can easily access the joints and perioded inspected them for maintenance (Rigo col 2 lines 27-34).
16. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over by Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham, further in view of Remes (US 20170370889).
17. Regarding claim 8:
The modified invention above teaches the mass spectrometer as claimed in claim 1. Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham does not specifically teach that wherein the mass spectrometer is a mass spectrometer that analyzes a sample supplied from a liquid chromatograph or a gas chromatograph.
Remes teaches mass spectrometry coupled with a chromatographic separation technique such as liquid chromatography or gas chromatograph ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Blessing in view of Sanatron, further in view of Durham, to couple the mass spectrometer as taught by Blessing with liquid chromatograph or gas chromatograph. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make such modification due to LC-GC’s widespread application and its sensitivity, selectivity, and throughput (Durham [0002]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY LI whose telephone number is (571) 272-5043. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30am-4:30pm. 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.
/LARRY LI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2881
/WYATT A STOFFA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights