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
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on January 21st, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on July 21st, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1 & 8 have been amended. All other claims remain in the previously presented form. Thus, Claims 1-20 still remain pending in the instant application. The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 was objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, rendering them moot.
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.
Claims 1-20 are 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. Claim 1 has been amended to now recite the limitation “the fixture structure being of the chamber or configured to be fastened to the chamber without fastening force passing via the stop structure”; this limitation constitutes new matter that does not find support within the originally filed specification. In this case, the phrase “fastened to the chamber without fastening force passing via the stop structure” constitutes a negative limitation. As noted in MPEP 2173.05(i), “any negative limitation or exclusionary proviso must have basis in the original disclosure”. Furthermore, “the mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion”. In this case, Applicant’s written description does not appear to provide any basis for excluding “fastening force passing via the stop structure”. The Examiner has also reviewed Applicant’s supplied figures and finds that such an arrangement does not appear to be depicted within any of the supplied figures either. As such, the original disclosure, as a whole, appears to have no basis for this exclusion. Thus, this negative limitation clearly constitutes new matter.
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 1-20 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 1 recites “the fixture structure being of the chamber or configured to be fastened to the chamber without fastening force passing via the stop structure”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite. As best understood by the Examiner, Applicant’s Figures 3A-4C best depict the recited invention. Paragraph 49 of the disclosure makes clear that the mounting chamber 330 forms the chamber where a vacuum environment is maintained. In other words, the original disclosure appears to provide basis for a fixture structure being “of the chamber”, as claimed. However, as far as the examiner understands, neither the written description nor the supplied figures disclose or depict a fixture structure being configured to be “fastened to the chamber without fastening force passing via the stop structure”, as claimed. Absent any written description or figures relating to this newly recited language, it becomes impossible to know what arrangement is being required for the fixture structure. Additionally, due to these deficiencies, it is not made clear what is meant by a force “passing via the stop structure”. Therefore, the metes and bounds of Claim 1 cannot be reasonably discerned, and as such, Claim 1 is rendered indefinite.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 21st, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument that “there is no apparent disclosure or teaching of, for example, the claimed fixture structure being of the chamber or configured to be fastened to the chamber without fastening force passing via the stop structure, as in claim 1. From Figures 1A-1F and 2, it is apparent that member 119 is not part of chamber 220. Further, it can be seen from Figures 1A-1 F and 2 of Quartarone that, assuming member 119 is "fastened" to chamber 220 (which Applicant does not concede), the member 119 is "fastened" to chamber 220 via fastening force through component 105 (and thus through pins 135 in component 105); otherwise, without force applied through component 105, member 119 would just fall down”, the Examiner must respectfully disagree. Applicant ultimately alleges that “fastening force passing via the stop structure” is present in Quartarone, and thus, Applicant concludes that amended Claim 1 overcomes the teachings of Quartarone. Applicant supports this position by the assertion that “it can be seen from Figures 1A-1 F and 2”. Respectfully, this argument is not well taken. Applicant appears to be assuming that some particular fastening structure exists in Quartarone that “passes via the stop structure” in order to fasten the fixture structure 119 to the vacuum chamber 220. However, the examiner has thoroughly reviewed the figures and disclosures in Quartarone and finds that there is nothing therein that supports Applicant’s position. In fact, Quartarone appears to directly oppose Applicant’s position. As best understood by the examiner, Figure 2 in Quartarone clearly depicts the fixture structure 119 being fastened to the vacuum chamber 220, and as such, the fixture structure 119 is clearly configured to be fastened to the chamber 220, as claimed. Quartarone further details how this fastening is achieved is by stating “second component 105 has a flange 109 for connection to a connection flange of a vacuum chamber at one end” (para. 25), “Intermediate component 119 has, at an opposite end, connecting component 125 arranged to be coupled with connecting component 113 of second component 105 for connecting second component 105 to intermediate component 119” (para. 30) and “second component 105 and intermediate component 119 are connected through a bayonet insertion with radial teeth 113a of second component 105 offset relative to radial teeth 125 of intermediate component 119 and subsequent rotation of the components relative to axis S” (para. 33). It is clear from these disclosures that Quartarone’s fixture structure 119 is configured to be fastened to the chamber 220 via a bayonet connection without fastening force passing via the stop structure (135), as claimed. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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) 1-2, 4-16, & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2014/0197627 to Quartarone et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 1A-2, Quartarone et al. (Quartarone hereinafter) discloses:
1. A system (Fig. 2; Abstract; paras. 2-3) comprising: a vibration isolator (lower elastic ring 126; see Figs. 1A-1B and para. 31; also shown, but not labeled, in Fig. 2) configured to be coupled to a housing (203) of a vacuum pump (210) configured to exhaust fluid from a chamber (220) (para. 2), the vibration isolator configured to isolate vibrations generated by the vacuum pump during operation (paras. 40, 42) and arranged along an axis of the system (Fig. 2); a stop structure (lower pins 135; Fig. 1B) located along the axis (Fig. 1B) and arranged to be disposed between (i.e. axially between) the vacuum pump housing and an adjacent fixture (lower set of recesses/slots 133; para. 35; Figs. 1A-1C), the stop structure configured to prevent displacement of the vacuum pump housing relative to the fixture above a threshold amount by contact with the fixture (paras. 34-35), wherein the displacement of the vacuum pump housing is configured to be within the threshold amount during normal operation (as shown in Fig. 1A and discussed within para. 35); and a fixture structure (119; “intermediate component”; para. 27; Fig. 1B) located along the axis (Figs. 1A-1C) and having (i.e. monolithically forming) the adjacent fixture (Figs. 1A & 1B), the fixture structure being of the chamber, or configured to be fastened to the chamber without fastening force passing via the stop structure (fixture structure 119 is configured to be fastened to the chamber 220 (as shown in Fig. 2) via a bayonet connection that does not pass fastening force through the stop structure 135; see paras. 25, 30, & 33 & Fig. 1), wherein the vibration isolator is located between (i.e. axially between) at least part of the fixture structure and the stop structure (Figs. 1B-1C), wherein the fixture is immovable, in use, relative to the fixture structure (fixture 133 is monolithically formed with fixture structure 119, thus, is immovable), and wherein at least part of the fixture structure, in use, surrounds the vibration isolator (fixture structure 119 circumferentially surrounds the vibration isolator 126; Figs. 1C-1E).
In regards to Claim 2, Quartarone discloses that the vibration isolator (126) is configured to inhibit transmission of the vibrations from the vacuum pump housing to the chamber (220) (paras. 40, 42).
In regards to Claim 4, Quartarone discloses that during normal operation of the vacuum pump, the stop structure is spaced from the fixture (as shown in Figs. 1A).
In regards to Claim 5, Quartarone discloses that the spacing is maintained between surfaces of the stop structure and the fixture in a radial direction (as shown in Fig. 1A).
In regards to Claim 6, Quartarone discloses that the spacing is maintained between surfaces of the stop structure and the fixture in an axial direction (as shown in Fig. 1A).
In regards to Claim 7, Quartarone discloses that the stop structure is configured to contact the fixture and prevent displacement of the vacuum pump housing above the threshold amount in an event of a malfunction of the vacuum pump (paras. 34-35).
In regards to Claim 8, Quartarone discloses that the stop structure is fixed relative to the vacuum pump housing (radial pins 135 are fixed to pump housing component 205; see Fig. 1A and paras. 35 & 46), and wherein the spacing prevents vibration from being transmitted from the vacuum pump housing via the stop structure, to the fixture (this is implicit; see also para. 39, which describes how a lack of contact between components dampens vibration).
In regards to Claim 9, Quartarone discloses that the stop structure is a separately formed structure (i.e. separate pins 135) that is fixedly connected to the vacuum pump housing (Figs. 1A-1B).
In regards to Claim 10, Quartarone discloses that the stop structure is integrally formed as part of the vacuum pump housing (Figs. 1A-1B; Applicant should note that it has been held that “integral” is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united by such means as fastening and welding. In re Hotte, 177 USPQ 326, 328 (CCPA 1973); in this instance, Quartarone’s stop structure (135) and vacuum pump housing (203) are fastened together, thereby forming an integral construction, as claimed). If Applicant truly desires a monolithic structure, then such a specific arrangement must be positively recited within the claim (and supported by the originally-filed specification).
In regards to Claim 11, Quartarone discloses that the stop structure comprises one or more teeth (the radial pins 135 form teeth, as claimed; Figs. 1A-1B).
In regards to Claim 12, Quartarone discloses that the fixture comprises one or more slots (133) to receive the one or more teeth of the stop structure (Figs. 1A-1B).
In regards to Claim 13, Quartarone discloses that a spacing is maintained between each of the one or more slots and the one or more teeth (Fig. 1A and para. 35).
In regards to Claim 14, Quartarone discloses that the one or more teeth of the stop structure contact the one more slots of the fixture to prevent rotation of the vacuum pump upon malfunction (“pins 135 abut against the walls of radial recesses 133 to prevent further rotation”; para. 35).
In regards to Claim 15, Quartarone discloses that the one or more teeth of the stop structure are made of a specified material that has a desired plastic deformation property (this reads on any material at all, including those with zero plastic deformation) to absorb kinetic energy of the vacuum pump upon failure (“pins 135 abut against the walls of radial recesses 133 to prevent further rotation” indicates absorption of kinetic energy; para. 35).
In regards to Claim 16, Quartarone discloses that the stop structure is disposed between the vacuum pump and the vibration isolator and fixedly coupled to the vacuum pump and the vibration isolator (Figs. 1A-1B & 2 clearly show that the stop structure 135 is 1) arranged axially between the vacuum pump 210 and the vibration isolator 131 and 2) fixedly coupled to the vacuum pump and the vibration isolator).
In regards to Claim 18, Quartarone further discloses a collar (121) configured to prevent displacement of the vacuum pump housing along an axis of rotation of the vacuum pump above an axial threshold amount, wherein the displacement of the vacuum pump housing is configured to be within the axial threshold amount during normal operation (paras. 39-42).
In regards to Claim 19, Quartarone discloses that the collar (121) comprises one or more portions (121a, 123) attached to a fixed structure (flange 111 of pump housing 203; see Fig. 1B and 2), and shaped to conform with a peripheral shape of the vacuum pump housing (as shown in Figs. 1B-1F).
In regards to Claim 20, Quartarone discloses that the collar (121) has a ring like structure (Figs. 1A-1B) comprising: a first portion (121a) of the one or more portions; and a second portion (123) of the one or more portions configured to couple (i.e. monolithically) with the first portion (Fig. 1B) forming a ring (“toroidal”; para. 29), the first portion and the second portion configured to be attached around a periphery of the vacuum pump (Figs. 1B-1F; paras. 27-33).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 & 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the best available prior art fails to disclose that the vibration isolator is configured to inhibit transmission of the vibrations from the vacuum pump housing to a chamber within which vacuum is created by the vacuum pump, wherein the fixture forms part of the chamber (Claim 3), much less that the chamber comprises a pocket to receive the vibration isolator and/or the stop structure (Claim 17).
Quartarone (applied above) is considered to be the most relevant prior art document. While Quartarone discloses that the vibration isolator 126 is configured to inhibit transmission of the vibrations from the vacuum pump housing to a chamber 220, he does not further provide the recited “fixture” 133 (i.e. lower slots 133) as part of chamber 220 (rather, Quartarone discloses the fixture 133 on a separate fixture structure 119, as detailed above). Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to have provided a fixture 133 within Quartarone’s chamber 220 because 1) there would have been no reason to have provided a fixture at this location, and 2) such a design change would have required significant impermissible hindsight in light of Applicant’s own disclosures. Similarly, Quartarone’s vacuum chamber 220 lacks the recited “pocket” to receive the vibration isolator and/or the stop structure (rather, Quartarone is designed to mount the vibration isolator and stop structure outside of the vacuum chamber, as detailed above). Furthermore, it would not have been obvious to have provided a pocket within Quartarone’s chamber 220 for these elements as claimed because 1) there would have been no reason to have provided these elements inside the vacuum chamber, and 2) such a design change would have required significant impermissible hindsight in light of Applicant’s own disclosures.
The Examiner further notes that US 7,341,1423 to Kabasawa and US 6,485,254 to Davis disclose additional stop structure arrangements for vacuum pump assemblies similar to that of Applicant’s invention, but neither of these references overcomes the deficiencies in Quartarone.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ALEXANDER BRYANT COMLEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-6PM CST.
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, Mark Laurenzi can be reached at 571-270-7878. 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.
/ALEXANDER B COMLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
ABC