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 .
Status of the Claims
This is a final rejection in response to the amendments and arguments filed 10/29/2025. Claims 1-10 are currently pending with claim 1 amended and claims 3 and 8-10 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to arguments to the amended claim and that the prior art “does not show or suggest an elastic portion that is integral with a metal flange portion that is integral with a cylinder-shaped portion extending into a flow passage,” it is contended that it has been held "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice." See MPEP 2144.04(V)(B). Similarly, it seems making “an elastic portion that is integral with a metal flange portion that is integral with a cylinder-shaped portion” is an engineering choice. Such a choice would not change the operation of piping structural portion of routing a fluid and potential provide a flexible connection.
Besides, the connection of elastic portion of Yoneyama (11 for instance), and using the elements 10A and 10B, to the portion of 4 makes the system integral. Therefore, examiner disagrees that the combination of the prior art does not teach the invention as claimed.
Regardless, the rejection to follow also relies on the prior art US Patent 4,862,697 to Tugal et al.
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) 1-2, 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2003/0007862 to Ohtachi et al. (Ohtachi ‘862) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0273552 to Tsubokawa (Tsubokawa) and in view of US Patent 4,862,697 to Tugal et al. (Tugal).
In Reference to Claim 1
Ohtachi ‘862 discloses a vacuum pump (Figure 1) for drawing in gas through an inlet port (1c for instance) by rotation of a rotor (30 for instance), the vacuum pump comprising:
a casing (4 and 5 for instance) that rotatably houses the rotor (30); and
a piping structural portion (7 for instance), the piping structural portion being an outlet port or a purge port (an exhaust port for instance, see ¶ [0061]),
wherein the piping structural portion (7) comprises a flange portion (see circled portion of 7 in annotated figure for instance) partially disposed in the casing (5 for instance), detachably connected to the casing (7 as attached to 5 for instance, see ¶ [0061]) and located in one end of the piping structural portion (right end of 7 for instance), a cylinder-shaped portion (right portion of 7 for instance, see also annotated figure) integral with the flange portion (both as part of 7 as seen in figure 1 for instance) and extending into a flow passage in the casing (right portion of 7 extending into 5 for instance) and an external flange (left portion of 7 for instance, see also annotated figure) located in the other end of the piping structural portion (left portion for instance).
Ohtachi ‘862 does not explicitly teach that the flange portion is “... a metal flange portion ...” and does not teach “... an elastic portion configured to elastically deform to absorb a displacement ...,” “... wherein the elastic portion is integral with the metal flange portion and the external flange ....”
Regarding the limitation “... a metal flange portion ...”: Tsubokawa is related to a vacuum pump (Fig. 1, 1 for instance, see also abstract) with a piping structural portion (25 and 26 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the piping structural portion comprises and a metal flange portion (Fig. 4, 250 for instance, see also ¶ [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Ohtachi ‘862 wherein the flange portion (Ohtachi ‘862) to be a metal flange portion (as taught by Tsubokawa), so as to use an art known technique (of forming flange portions of piping systems of a vacuum pump as taught by Tsubokawa) into the system of Ohtachi ‘862 and predictably connect the vacuum pump to further devices and using known and suitable materials.
PNG
media_image1.png
854
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding the limitation an elastic portion configured to elastically deform to absorb a displacement ...,” “... wherein the elastic portion is integral with the metal flange portion and the external flange ....”:
Tugal is related to a vacuum system (Fig. 1, 12 for instance) and the connection of a piping structural portion (51 for instance) to a port (20) of the system, as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the piping structural portion comprises an elastic portion (52 for instance) configured to elastically deform to absorb a displacement (a bellows for instance, see col 2, ll 47-52), a metal flange portion (56 for instance, and as welded to 52, see col 4, ll 38-42) and an external flange (portion of 52 adjacent 56 for instance), wherein the elastic portion (52) is integral with the metal flange portion and the external flange (56 and portion of 52 adjacent 56 and integral as formed with and welded to for instance, see col 4, ll 32-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Ohtachi ‘862 wherein the piping structural portion (of Ohtachi ‘862) comprises an elastic portion (as taught by Tugal) and configured to elastically deform to absorb a displacement (as also taught by Tugal), to have a metal (as taught by Tsubokawa for instance) flange portion (of Ohtachi ‘862) that is partially disposed in the casing (of Ohtachi ‘862), have a cylinder-shaped portion (of Ohtachi ‘862) integral with the metal flange portion (as formed with or welded to as taught by Tugal), and wherein the elastic portion (as taught by Tugal) is integral with the metal flange portion and the external flange (52 as taught by Tugal and as integral with 56 as would be integral with the flange system of Ohtachi ‘862), so as to use an art known technique (of using a flexible tube in the system of the piping structure as taught by Tugal) into the system of Ohtachi ‘862 and predictably connect the vacuum pump to further devices and limit the transference of vibration from the pump to the further devices.
In Reference to Claim 2
Ohtachi ‘862, as modified by Tsubokawa and Tugal, discloses the vacuum pump according to claim 1, wherein a direction, in which the piping structural portion (Ohtachi ‘862, 7 for instance) extends from the casing (Ohtachi ‘862, 5), has a directional component in a radial direction of the rotor (Ohtachi ‘862, to the left and right of 30 for instance).
In Reference to Claim 4
Ohtachi ‘862, as modified by Tsubokawa and Tugal, discloses the vacuum pump according to claim 1, wherein the piping structural portion (of Ohtachi ‘862 as modified by Tugal) has a bellows structure (as taught by Tugal for instance).
In Reference to Claim 6
Ohtachi ‘862, as modified by Tsubokawa and Tugal, discloses the vacuum pump according to claim 1, wherein the piping structural portion is an outlet port (of Ohtachi ‘862, exhaust portion for instance).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2003/0007862 to Ohtachi et al. (Ohtachi ‘862) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0273552 to Tsubokawa (Tsubokawa) and in view of US Patent 4,862,697 to Tugal et al. (Tugal) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0184665 to Yamato et al. (Yamato) and in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0103934 to Ohtachi et al. (Ohtachi ‘934).
In Reference to Claim 5
Ohtachi ‘862, as modified by Tsubokawa and Tugal, discloses the vacuum pump according to claim 1, except explicitly, “... wherein the elastic portion is constituted of an elastic component formed of an elastic member and is placed to be sandwiched between piping provided in the piping structural portion and the casing ....”
Yamato is related to a vacuum pump (abstract, molecular pump for instance) with a piping structural portion (Fig. 2, 11 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches a sealing member sandwiched between piping provided in the piping structural portion (11 for instance, seal structure not labeled) and a casing (2 for instance).
Further, Ohtachi ‘934 is related to a vacuum pump (abstract) and sealing between static structures (as seen in figure 4 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein elastic members may be used to seal between static structures (¶ 0025] and [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Ohtachi ‘862 wherein the elastic portion (further portion added to seal between the flange and casing of Ohtachi ‘862 for instance, such as the sealing as taught by Yamato) is constituted of an elastic component formed of an elastic member (as further taught by Ohtaki ‘934 the known use of elastic members for sealing) and is placed to be sandwiched between piping provided in the piping structural portion and the casing (of Ohtachi ‘862 for instance), so as to use an art known technique (of using a sealing structure between piping and an exhaust port of a vacuum pump for instance, the seal further being an elastic member) into the system of Ohtachi ‘862 and predictably seal between the casing and piping structure.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2003/0007862 to Ohtachi et al. (Ohtachi ‘862) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0273552 to Tsubokawa (Tsubokawa) and in view of US Patent 4,862,697 to Tugal et al. (Tugal) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of JP2008038844 to Takaada et al. (Takaada).
In Reference to Claim 7
Ohtachi ‘862, as modified by Tsubokawa and Tugal, discloses the vacuum pump according to claim 1, except explicitly, “... wherein the piping structural portion is a purge port ....”
Takaada is related to a vacuum pump (abstract) with a piping structural portion (Fig. 1, 15 or 17 for instance), as the claimed invention, and teaches wherein the piping structural portion is a purge port (¶ [0033]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide in the system of Ohtachi ‘862 wherein the piping structural portion is a purge port, as taught by Takaada, so as to use an art known technique (of providing structural piping to a purge port as taught by Takaada) into the system of Ohtachi ‘862 and predictably use the piping to route fluid into or out of the system of Ohtachi ‘862.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, as cited in the Notice of References Cited, are cited to show piping structures to vacuum pumps, the use of bellows structures to connect devices.
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 WAYNE A LAMBERT whose telephone number is (571)270-3516. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 am - 7 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, Nathaniel E Wiehe can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
/WAYNE A LAMBERT/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745