DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 11-13 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.
Claim 11 recites “an ion optical device formed by additive manufacturing” comprising a printed body having first and second end supports, but also first and second isolated electrical circuits formed by cutting away the first and second end supports. It is unclear whether what is being claimed is the finished ion device having no end supports and isolated electrical circuits, or the intermediate printed body having end supports and circuits which are not isolated from each other.
Claiming the intermediate printed body having end supports which would produce isolated electrical circuits when removed from the printed body would overcome the 112 rejection and the prior art. Claiming the finished product would overcome the 112 rejection but would make the claims subject to rejection in view of Gordon (US 20250364237 A1), as claim 11 is a product-by-process claim (MPEP 2113, R-01.2024) and Gordon teaches the finished product of a multipole with supporting rings and isolated electrical circuits, despite being made by different method steps ("[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985).)
Claims 12-13 are rejected for their dependence on claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-10 and 14-21 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the prior art does not disclose or make obvious a method of manufacturing an ion optical device including printing the ion optical device including a plurality of rods, ring sand one or more end supports, including removing the end support from the ion optical device.
In the prior art, 3-D printing of ion optical devices is taught by Velazquez-Garcia (WO 2024006608 A1), Pathak (Pathak et al, “Design of 3-D printed Quadrupole Mass Spectrometer”, 2020 5th IEEE International Conference on Emerging Electronics, DOI:101109/ICEEE50728.2020.9777055) and Allcock (US 20250344416 A1) but the references do not teach forming a multipole structure with supporting rings by forming and detaching and end support from the device. Multipole structures having ring supports are taught by Ino (US 4,700,069 A), Hurst (US 4,990,777 A), Julien (US 5,384,461 A), Russ (US 6,417,511 B1), Ueda (WO 2019/230001 A1), and Steiner (US 8,492,713 B2) , but the references do not teach forming such a structure by the claimed method of 3-d printing a rod structure including forming and then removing an end support.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-7096. The examiner can normally be reached M to F 8:30 AM-5:00 PM.
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 22293. 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.
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights