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 July 25th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 14th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1, 11, & 21 have been amended. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-15 & 21-25 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
Claims 1-15 & 21-25 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have obviated these objections, rendering them moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous prior art rejections using Flegal et al. have been fully considered and are persuasive. In particular, Applicant’s amendments overcome the teachings of Flegal. Therefore, the 102(a)(1) rejections using Flegal have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 3,579,997 to Rapinat.
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, 4, 9-12, 21-23, & 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 3,579,997 to Rapinat.
PNG
media_image1.png
1166
1041
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to independent Claims 1, 11, & 21, and with particular reference to Figure 2 shown immediately above, Rapinat discloses:
1. A cryogenic pump (Fig. 2; “cryopump”; Abstract) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a body (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) defining an inner volume (Fig. 2) between a first end (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) and a second end (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above), wherein a flange (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) extends from the first end of the body (Fig. 2) and is directly coupled to a process chamber (12, 13) (see Fig. 1), and an opening (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) defined at a first end of the body (Fig. 2), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (Fig. 2, as annotated by the Examiner) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 2), wherein a first lateral dimension (L1, as annotated by the Examiner above) of the opening is less than a second lateral dimension (L2, as annotated by the Examiner above) of the body (apparent in Fig. 2, as annotated by the Examiner), the first and second lateral dimensions being defined perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 2), and wherein the second lateral dimension is defined at the second end (Fig. 1); and wherein a circumferential side of the body slopes radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (apparent in Fig. 2 above); one or more capture plate modules (26) disposed in the body between the first end and the second end (Fig. 2, as annotated by the examiner; module 26a is disposed partially between the first and second ends); a cold header (23, 28a-28e, 30a-30d, 32) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 45-75)
11. A cryogenic pump (Fig. 2; “cryopump”; Abstract) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a body (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) defining an inner volume (Fig. 2) between a first end (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) and a second end (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above), wherein a flange (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) extends from the first end of the body (Fig. 2) and is directly coupled to a process chamber (12, 13) (see Fig. 1), and an opening (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) defined at a first end of the body (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 2), and wherein the body has a non-cylindrical shape with a circumferential side sloping radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (Fig. 2); one or more capture plate modules (26) disposed in the body; and a cold header (23, 28a-28e, 30a-30d, 32) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 45-75).
21. A cryogenic pump (Fig. 2; “cryopump”; Abstract) for semiconductor processing (this is a statement of intended use that does not limit the apparatus claim in any patentable sense), comprising: a body (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) defining an inner volume (Fig. 2) between a first end (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) and a second end (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above), wherein a flange (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) extends from the first end of the body (Fig. 2) and is directly coupled to a process chamber (12, 13) (see Fig. 1), and an opening (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) defined at the first end of the body (Fig. 2, as annotated by the Examiner), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (annotated by the Examiner in Fig. 2 above) is defined from the first end of the body to the second end of the body (Fig. 2, as annotated by the Examiner), and wherein a circumferential side of the body slopes radially outward, in relation to the longitudinal axis, from the first end to the second end (Fig. 2, as annotated by the Examiner); one or more capture plate modules (26) disposed in the body between the first end and the second end (Fig. 2, as annotated by the examiner; module 26a is disposed partially between the first and second ends); and a cold header (23, 28a-28e, 30a-30d, 32) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (Fig. 2; col. 2, lines 45-75)
The Examiner notes that Applicant’s specification describes (and depicts) a cryogenic pump body (112) as including, in sequence, 1) an upper, distal end of the body (i.e. first end 122), 2) an intermediate end of the body (i.e. second end 124), and 3) a cylindrical region of the body (seen at the bottom of Fig. 2). In other words, Applicant’s specification makes clear that the “second end” 124 is located at a point between the first end 122 and the cylindrical portion of the body 112. As such, the Examiner has interpreted the “second end” recited in the claims in the same manner described and depicted within the specification; that is, the “second end” is an intermediate end of the body located between a first/distal end and a cylindrical portion of the body. The same arrangement is clearly present in Rapinat, as detailed (and depicted) above.
In regards to Claim 4, the one or more capture plate modules (26) comprise a pair of fixed capture plate modules (26a, 26b; Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 9, the opening in the body is elongated (i.e. longer than it is tall; Fig. 2), and wherein the first lateral dimension corresponds to a maximum length of the opening (apparent in Fig. 2).
In regards to Claim 10, the process chamber (12, 13) is a vacuum chamber (“a vacuum can be obtained and then maintained in a chamber”) associated with (i.e. capable of use with) a process or apparatus selected from the group consisting of: extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography, physical vapor deposition (PVD), atomic layer deposition (ALD), chemical vapor deposition (CVD), an etch process, a transfer room, a buffer room, an attached/hooked chamber in a multi-chamber structure, an implanter tool, and a measurement tool (Rapinat’s vacuum chamber 12/13 maintains a vacuum of “10-2 torr” that is capable of use in any of the claimed processes).
In regards to Claim 12, the circumferential side of the body slopes radially outward at an angle of 15 degrees to 60 degrees (it is apparent from Fig. 2 that the circumferential side slopes outward at an angle which is greater than 15 degrees and less than 60 degrees).
In regards to Claim 22, a first lateral dimension (L1) of the opening is less than a second lateral dimension (L2) of the body at the second end (Fig. 2 above).
In regards to Claim 23, the body is conical (Fig. 2 above).
In regards to Claim 25, see Claim 15 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapinat (applied above).
In regards to Claim 2, Rapinat discloses the invention of Claim 1, wherein the second lateral dimension is defined at the second end (Fig. 1). However, Rapinat does not specify that a ratio of the second lateral dimension (L2) to the first lateral dimension (L1) is equal to or greater than 1.5. While it appears from Rapinat’s Figure 2 that the second lateral dimension L2 is more than 1.5 times greater the first lateral dimension L1, Rapinat does not disclose this specifically. However, the courts have held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, the device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device and is therefore not patentably distinct (See MPEP § 2144.04 - Paragraph IV.A). In this case, Rapinat definitively discloses that a ratio of the second lateral dimension (L2) to the first lateral dimension (L1) is greater than 1. Furthermore, it has been held by the courts that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges (see In re AIler, 105 USPQ 233) or an optimum value of a result effective variable (see In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)) involves only routine skill in the art. Please note that in para. 32 of the instant application, this optimum ratio value has been disclosed, but the applicant has failed to disclose any criticality for the claimed limitation. Therefore, Applicant’s claimed invention is not patentably distinct from that disclosed in Rapinat.
Claim(s) 3, 14, & 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapinat (applied above) in view of CN 207847882 to Wu (attached to previous office action).
In regards to Claim 3, Rapinat discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 1, wherein the one or more capture plate modules (26) comprise at least one array of blades (26a-26d). However, Rapinat does not disclose that the blades are movable via vibration, rotation, or tilting, as claimed.
However, Wu discloses yet another cryogenic pump (Fig. 1; “low temperature pump”; Abstract)
comprising: a body (2) having a first end/flange (at lead line 2a; Fig. 1), directly coupled to a process chamber (“suction port 1 for receiving the gas in the vacuum chamber”), and an opening (“suction port 1”) defined at the first end of the body (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (i.e. a vertical axis thereof) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1), one or more capture plate modules (71; “a plurality of cryopanels 71 which are coaxially arranged with the cryopump and have gaps between them”; para. 17) disposed in the body (Figs. 1); and a cold header (4) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (Fig. 1). Wu goes on to specifically disclose rotation of the capture plate modules (see paras. 10-12, 17), and discloses that such rotation allows the capture plate modules to more evenly condense incoming gasses (para. 17). In other words, operation of the vacuum pump is improved by rotating the cryopanels. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a cryopump with more effective capture plate module operation, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wu in combination with those seen in Rapinat in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rapinat’s capture plate module blades (26) with the rotation driving mechanism of Wu in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a cryogenic pump with rotational capture plate modules, thereby ensuring that the capture plate modules (26) can be moved (i.e. rotated) such that they are more evenly utilized for condensing incoming gasses (as taught in Wu).
In regards to Claim 14, Rapinat discloses the cryogenic pump of claim 11, wherein the one or more capture plate modules (26) comprise at least one array of blades (26a-26d). However, Rapinat does not disclose that the blades are movable via rotation at a rate of about 1000 RPM or less, wherein a direction of rotation is clockwise or counterclockwise.
However, as described previously above, However, Wu discloses yet another cryogenic pump (Fig. 1; “low temperature pump”; Abstract) comprising: a body (2) having a first end/flange (at lead line 2a; Fig. 1), directly coupled to a process chamber (“suction port 1 for receiving the gas in the vacuum chamber”), and an opening (“suction port 1”) defined at the first end of the body (as seen in Fig. 1), wherein a longitudinal axis of the body (i.e. a vertical axis thereof) is defined from the first end of the body to a second end of the body (Fig. 1), one or more capture plate modules (71; “a plurality of cryopanels 71 which are coaxially arranged with the cryopump and have gaps between them”; para. 17) disposed in the body (Figs. 1); and a cold header (4) thermally coupled to the one or more capture plate modules (Fig. 1). Wu goes on to specifically disclose rotation of the capture plate modules (see paras. 10-12, 17), and discloses that such rotation allows the capture plate modules to more evenly condense incoming gasses (para. 17). In other words, operation of the vacuum pump is improved by rotating the cryopanels. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a cryopump with more effective capture plate modules, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Wu in combination with those seen in Rapinat in order to obtain such a result. Consequently, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rapinat’s capture plate module blades (26) with the rotation driving mechanism of Wu in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a cryogenic pump with rotational capture plate modules, thereby ensuring that the capture plate modules can be manipulated such that they are evenly utilized for condensing incoming gasses (as taught in Wu). Wu does not specifically disclose a rotation rate of “about 1000 rpm or less”. However, Wu makes clear that rotation of the capture plate modules (71) provides improved gas condensing and absorbing efficiency (paras. 17, 31). In other words, the purpose of Wu’s rotation is not speed, but precise circumferential adjustment of the capture plate modules. Those of ordinary skill in the art of cryopumps would have recognized that such rotation would almost certainly be very low speed rotation, far below 1000 RPM, as claimed. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have rotated Rapinat’s capture plate module blades (26) at a speed of less than 1000 RPM, as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapinat (applied above).
In regards to Claim 15, Rapinat discloses that the one or more capture plate modules comprise first and second capture plate modules (26a, 26b) having respective first and second outer dimensions (Fig. 2) that decrease in the direction away from the first end and towards the second end (apparent in Fig. 2). In other words, Rapinat discloses an opposite slope of capture plate module than that which is claimed. However, Rapinat does specifically disclose the use of another capture plate module (27) having an outer dimension that increases/slopes outward in the direction away from the first end (apparent in Fig. 2), as claimed. Thus, Rapinat discloses the known use of both decreasing and increasing slopes for capture plate modules within a cryogenic pump. As such, Rapinat discloses the claimed invention except for providing increasing outer dimensions for capture plate modules (26a-26d). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have reversed the slopes of capture plate modules (26a-d), since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 13, & 24 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 the features of Claims 5-8 & 24, which define various combinations of fixed and movable capture plate modules placed in specific arrangements arranged specifically within a cryogenic pump having a body shaped and structured as recited in Claims 1 & 21. The best available prior art also fails to disclose the features of Claim 13, which requires the one or more capture plate modules to comprise a movable capture plate module that is movable via vibration at a rate of about 20 Hz or less. The best available prior art fails to disclose a movable capture plate module that is movable via vibration at the rate claimed in Claim 13, specifically arranged within a cryogenic pump having a body shaped and structured as recited in Claim 11.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed July 25th, 2026 have 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 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
Prosecution Insights