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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ion conduit of claim 5 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The claims recite “a pumping block”. The specification describes the pumping block as a wall separating the ion source enclosure and the vacuum chamber (see The pumping block 18 may have a generally planar upstream surface, although it may comprise a tubular flanged portion 40 that extends upstream from the planar surface, wherein the ion block 20 is mounted on the tubular portion 40 (optionally with a thermal insulating layer 42 therebetween).” Therefore, the term “pumping block” will be interpreted to mean a partition.
The claims recite “a second portion of the shield covers an internal surface of the ion enclosure”, which would seem to suggest that the second portion of the shield contacts the internal surface. However a dependent claim states “the second portion of the shield does not contact the ion source enclosure”. Therefore, examiner will interpret “covers an internal surface of the ion enclosure” to mean that the second portion extends over an internal surface of the ion enclosure. Examiner will interpret “covers a surface of the pumping block” in the same manner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-5, 8-9, 11-14, and 16-25 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.
The claims recite a shield comprising a first portion “configured to mount to a pumping block so as to” secure the shield at a location in which “a second portion of the shield covers an internal surface of the ion source enclosure.” The clause beginning with “a second portion” appears to be related to the second portion, rather than the first portion configuration and/or its mounting location. It is therefore unclear what is being claimed. Suggested correction: amend to “a shield comprising a first portion configured to mount to an upstream side of the pumping block and a second portion extending over an internal surface of the ion enclosure.”
Claim 4 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 4 recites the limitation "said upstream wall of the pumping block" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 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 5 recites the limitation "the upstream wall of the pumping block" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 8-9, 11, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0079881 (Fisher et al.).
Regarding claim 1, Fischer et al. discloses a mass and/or mobility spectrometer comprising:
an ion source enclosure for housing an ion source (multiple figures, element 10);
a vacuum chamber (“The detector 11 may comprise a mass analyzer or other similar device well known in the art for detecting the enhanced analyte ions that were collected and transported by the transport system 6.” P 62, where a mass analyzer inherently includes a vacuum chamber);
a pumping block between the ion source enclosure and vacuum chamber (partition between atmospheric pressure ion source enclosure 10 and the vacuum chamber); and
a shield for protecting a surface of the ion source enclosure (fig. 6-7, elements 5 & 50, fig. 10, elements 5 & 70);
wherein the shield has a first portion configured to mount to a upstream side of the pumping block so as to secure the shield at a location in which a second portion of the shield covers an internal surface of the ion source enclosure (first portion is element 5, second portion is element 50 or element 70).
Regarding claim 3, Fischer et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, comprising said ion source, wherein the ion source is configured to receive a liquid solution comprising analyte carried in a solvent and to spray the solution into the ion source enclosure (multiple figures, element 3).
Regarding claim 4, Fischer et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the first portion of the shield comprises a substantially planar region for being placed against or adjacent a planar region of said upstream wall of the pumping block for protecting said planar region of the wall from the ion source; and/or wherein the spectrometer comprises the ion source, and the ion source is configured to receive a liquid solution comprising analyte carried in a solvent and spray the solution into the ion source enclosure; and wherein the ion source is arranged so as to spray the solution along an axis that is directly towards and onto the second portion of the shield (multiple figures, element 3).
Regarding claim 8, Fischer et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the shield does not contact the ion source enclosure when the ion source enclosure is mounted against the pumping block; and/or wherein the shield is mounted to the pumping block such that there is a gap between the second portion of the shield and an adjacent wall of the ion source enclosure, when the ion source enclosure is mounted against the pumping block (fig. 6-7 & 10).
Regarding claim 9, Fischer et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the shield comprises a curved plate and covers a curved wall of the ion source enclosure that is adjacent to the second portion of the shield (fig. 6-7, element 50, curved portion around exit 58, fig. 10, element 70).
Regarding claim 11, Fischer et al. disclose the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the shield is arranged adjacent to and covering a bottom wall portion of the ion source enclosure (fig. 6-7, element 50, fig. 10, element 70); and wherein an upper side of the second portion of the shield has one or more channels or upwardly facing lips for directing liquid along the second portion of the shield (fig. 6-7, element 50, portion slanted towards exit 58, fig. 10, element 70, upwardly curving portion).
Regarding claim 23, Fischer et al. discloses a shield for an ion source enclosure, wherein the shield has a first portion configured to mount to an upstream side of a pumping block of a mass and/or mobility spectrometer so as to secure the shield at a location in which a second portion of the shield covers an internal surface of the ion source enclosure (fig. 6-7, elements 5 & 50, and fig. 10, elements 5 & 70).
Regarding claim 24, Fischer et al. discloses a method of mass and/or mobility spectrometry comprising: providing a shield as claimed in claim 23; mounting the first portion of the shield to the upstream side of a pumping block of a mass and/or mobility spectrometer; and mounting an ion source enclosure over the shield and against the pumping block such that an internal surface of the ion source enclosure is covered by the second portion of the shield (fig. 6-7 & fig. 10, where both mounting steps clearly occurred since they are connected in the configuration claimed).
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 7,411,185 (Waki).
Regarding claim 25, Waki discloses a mass and/or mobility spectrometer comprising:
an ion source enclosure for housing an ion source (fig. 3, element 15);
a vacuum chamber (fig. 3, elements 21, 22, & 23);
a pumping block between the ion source enclosure and vacuum chamber (fig. 3-4, element 16); and
a shield for protecting a surface of the pumping block (fig. 3, element 35);
wherein the shield is configured to mount to an upstream side of the pumping block so as to secure the shield at a location in which it covers a surface of the pumping block (fig. 4).
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.
Claim(s) 5 and 16-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5, Fischer et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the upstream wall of the pumping block comprises a tubular portion, wherein the tubular portion comprises an ion conduit for allowing ions from the ion source to pass through the pumping block to the vacuum chamber (multiple figure, element 37); and wherein the first portion of the shield is configured to mount to the tubular portion (multiple figures, element 5).
Fisher does not disclose whether the pumping block includes a generally planar region downstream of the tubular portion. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include a planar portion of the pumping block downstream of the tubular portion because planar walls are easier to mate to rectangular openings like the one on the side of the ion source enclosure.
Regarding claim 16, Fisher discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the first and second portions of the shield are connectable with each other (“The interface 59 to the conduit opening may be an orifice, or the inner chamber may be sealingly coupled to the conduit 37 as shown.” P 69, also “As shown in the exemplary illustration, the auxiliary electrode may be configured as an extension of the conduit 37 and may be curved so that its end is adjacent to the corona needle tip as shown.” P 79).
Fischer does not specify whether the connection is releaseable such that they can be repeatedly connected and disconnected with each other. However, releasable connections are well-known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make the connection releaseable so the portions could be dissembled and reassembled for transportation or maintenance.
Regarding claim 17, Fisher discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein each of the first and second portions of the shield has at least one element that is configured to cooperate with at least one element on the second and first portions of the shield, respectively, such that the first and second portions of the shield can be engaged with each other (“The interface 59 to the conduit opening may be an orifice, or the inner chamber may be sealingly coupled to the conduit 37 as shown.” P 69, also “As shown in the exemplary illustration, the auxiliary electrode may be configured as an extension of the conduit 37 and may be curved so that its end is adjacent to the corona needle tip as shown.” P 79).
Fischer does not specify whether the engagement is through interlocking elements that can be repeatedly mechanically engaged and disengaged. Interlocking elements are very well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to use such interlocking elements so the portions could be dissembled and reassembled for transportation or maintenance.
Regarding claim 17, Fisher discloses the spectrometer of claim 16, wherein the first or second portion of the shield has a first interlocking element for engaging the second or first shield portion of the shield, respectively (obvious to use interlocking element for the reasons discussed above), so as to prevent the first and second shield portions of the shield from moving away from each other in a first dimension (“The interface 59 to the conduit opening may be an orifice, or the inner chamber may be sealingly coupled to the conduit 37 as shown.” P 69, also “As shown in the exemplary illustration, the auxiliary electrode may be configured as an extension of the conduit 37 and may be curved so that its end is adjacent to the corona needle tip as shown.” P 79).
Regarding claim 18, Fisher discloses the claimed invention except for the interlocking element being a hook formed by cutting a flap in a planar region of the first or second portion of the shield and then bending that flap out of the plane of the planar region so as to form the hook. Hooks are very well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to use hooks formed by cutting and bending flaps because such hooks are interlocking elements that allow for easy assembly and reassembly.
Regarding claim 20, Fisher discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the second portion of the shield abuts against part of the first portion of the shield when it is engaged with the first portion of the shield (fig. 6-7 & 10).
Fisher does not disclose a mechanical locating member arranged and located around that part of the first shield. Mechanical locating members (ridges or equivalents, as per 112(f)) are very well known in the art, and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include such features to guide engagement.
Regarding claim 21, Fisher discloses the spectrometer of claim 20, wherein the mechanical locating member is a ridge that extends around at least part of the perimeter of the part of the second portion of the shield that abuts against the first portion of the shield when they are engaged (obvious as discussed with respect to claim 20).
Regarding claim 22, Fisher discloses the spectrometer of claim 1, wherein the first and/or second portion of the shield is formed from metal (“Suitable materials may include stainless steel, molybdenum, titanium, silicon carbide or other high-temperature metals.” P 67, regarding the auxillary electrode, electrodes are usually metallic and it would have been obvious to use a metal because of the high electrical conductivity of metal).
Fisher does not disclose a grip region that is formed from, or covered by, a thermally insulating material. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the shield of Fisher to include a grip portion that is formed from, or covered by, a thermally insulating material, so that the shield could be easily gripped by an operator during disassembly even though the shield would be very hot after use due to the high temperatures in the ionization chamber.
Claim(s) 2, 12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. as applied to claims 1 & 11 above and further in view of GB 2574327 (the ‘327 publication).
Regarding claim 2, Fischer et al. discloses the claimed invention except for the ion source enclosure being arranged on a door that is hingedly coupled relative to the pumping block, such that when the door is closed the ion source enclosure is sealed against the pumping block.
The ‘327 publication discloses a mass spectrometer with an ion source enclosure being arranged on a door that is hingedly coupled relative to the pumping block, such that when the door is closed the ion source enclosure is sealed against the pumping block (“The spectrometer may comprise a door for accessing the ion source enclosure.”). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify arrange the ion source enclosure of Fischer on the door of the ‘327 publication to allow for easy access for maintenance, as discussed in the ‘327 publication (“As described above, it may be desirable to access the ion source and/or cone assembly of the ion block 802, e.g. for maintenance or to replace various components. In order to do this, the source access door 2000 in the outer casing is first opened.”).
Regarding claim 12, Fischer et al. discloses the spectrometer of claim 11, comprising a waste conduit for allowing waste gas and/or liquid from the ion source to pass out of the ion source enclosure (multiple figures, element 12); wherein the second portion of the shield extends along the bottom wall portion of the ion source enclosure, from a first end that is located at an entrance opening of the waste conduit, to a second end that is positioned vertically higher than the first end (fig. 6-7, first end is element 58, second end is element 52).
Fisher et al. does not disclose the waste conduit being in the pumping block. The ‘327 publication discloses a mass spectrometer were the waste conduit is routed through the pumping block (fig. 17, element 1720). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to route the waste conduit of Fischer through the pumping block as done in the ‘327 publication if doing so allowed the conduit to reach the final disposal site more quickly.
Regarding claim 14, Fischer et al. in view of the ‘327 publication discloses the spectrometer of claim 12, wherein the first end of the second portion of the shield protrudes into the opening of the waste conduit (fig. 6-7, element 58).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART whose telephone number is (571)270-5782. The examiner can normally be reached 10am - 6pm Pacific Time M-F.
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.
/ELIZA W OSENBAUGH-STEWART/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights