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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed December 03rd, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-12 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every claim objection previously cited in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on September 11th, 2025. However, the amendment has raised other issues detailed below.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz et al. (WO 2004092585), hereinafter Dietz in view of Tanaka (US Patent No. 9,046,091), hereinafter Tanaka.
Regarding claim 1, Dietz discloses a flow restrictor for restricting a flow rate of gas flowing into a
cryopump, said flow restrictor being configured to be mounted in an inlet of said cryopump (Fig. 1, radiation shield 17, bottom 13, inlet of passage 14, vacuum pump 15; Pg. 6, a radiation shield 17 is arranged above the passage 14 in the interior of the vacuum space 11; Pg. 7, vacuum pump 15 shown is a cryopump; Further, the flow restrictor (radiation shield 17, bottom 13) restricts the flow of gas into the inlet of the passage 14 of the vacuum pump 15 by at least requiring the gas to flow around the shielding plate 30 and through the legs of the lattice-shaped carrier 31 on the way into the passage 14), said flow restrictor comprising:
an inlet component for providing a gas flow path into said cryopump, said inlet component defining an orifice (Fig. 1 of Dietz depicts bottom 13 to define passage 14 wherein gas is allowed to flow);
a shielding plate obscuring said gas flow path through said inlet component (Fig. 2, plate 30; Further, plate 30 of Dietz obscures the gas flow path through the passage 14 as gas is forces to flow around the plate 30 between the lattice-shaped carrier 31 before entering the passage 14); and
an intermediate component linking said shielding plate to said inlet component, said intermediate component comprising a plurality of aperture (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts lattice-shaped carrier 31 to be connected to the plate 30 which links the plate 30 to the bottom 13 via the contact ring 32 and further depicts a plurality of apertures between the legs of the lattice-shaped carrier 31);
wherein said inlet component is configured in a plane parallel to and axially offset from said
shielding plate by said intermediate component, such that when mounted in the inlet of said cryopump, said inlet component lies between a pumping chamber of said cryopump and said shielding plate (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts the bottom 13 to be in a plane parallel to and axially offset from plate 30 by the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32 such that the bottom 13 lies between pump chamber 25 and plate 30);
said shielding plate is configured to shield said gas flow path through said inlet component orifice such that when said flow restrictor is mounted on said cryopump, said orifice defined by said inlet component is located between said shielding plate and a cryopanel within said cryopump and there is no direct line of sight path through said intermediate component and said inlet component to said cryopanel within said cryopump; wherein an outer perimeter of said inlet component extends beyond an outer perimeter of said shielding plate and the outer perimeter of said shielding plate extends beyond a perimeter of said orifice of said inlet component (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts the passage 14 to be located between the plate 30 and cooled radiation protection shield 22 and pump surfaces 24 and there is no direct line of sight path through the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32, which correspond to the intermediate component as claimed, and the bottom 12, which corresponds to the inlet component as claimed, to the cooled radiation protection shield 22 and pump surfaces 24, which correspond to the cryopanel as claimed, within said vacuum pump 15; Further, annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz depicts an outer perimeter X of bottom 13 to extend beyond an outer perimeter Y of plate 30 and the outer perimeter Y of the plate 30 extends beyond a perimeter Z of the passage 14).
However, Dietz does not explicitly disclose said shielding plate is cooled by said cryopump.
Tanaka teaches said shielding plate is cooled by said cryopump (Col. 7, lines 19-23, The first stage panel 32 is fixed on the end portion of the radiation shield 16 towards the shield opening 31, and is cooled to a temperature substantially equal to that of the radiation shield 16; Col. 9, lines 3-10, operating the cryopump 10, the inside of the vacuum chamber 80 is evacuated to the degree of approximately 1 Pa by using other appropriate roughing pump prior to its operation. Subsequently the cryopump 10 is operated. The first cooling stage 22 and the second cooling stage 24 are cooled by driving the refrigerator 12, allowing the radiation shield 16, the first-stage panel 32 and the second-stage panel 14, which are thermally connected to the stages, also to be cooled).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the flow restrictor of Dietz of claim 1 wherein said shielding plate is cooled by said cryopump as taught by Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it becomes possible that both a reduced influence of the radiation heat and an improved pumping speed of the cryopump are realized (Tanaka, Col. 9, lines 48-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
s
Annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz
Regarding claim 4, Dietz as modified discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein a surface of said intermediate component comprising said at least one aperture lies at an angle of between 120° and 60° to said shielding plate (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32, which correspond the intermediate component as claimed, to be perpendicular to the plate 30, which corresponds to the shielding plate as claimed).
Regarding claim 5, Dietz as modified discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 4 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 4 above), wherein said surface of said intermediate component comprising said plurality of apertures is perpendicular to said shielding plate (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32, which correspond the intermediate component as claimed, to be perpendicular to the plate 30, which corresponds to the shielding plate as claimed).
Regarding claim 6, Dietz as modified discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said intermediate component comprises a cylinder (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts the contact ring 32 to be a cylinder).
Regarding claim 8, Dietz as modified discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said shielding plate extends radially outward from the intermediate component to the outer perimeter of the shielding plate (See annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz below, plate 30 extends radially outward from the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32, which correspond the intermediate component as claimed, to the outer perimeter Y of the plate 30).
Regarding claim 9, Dietz as modified discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said outer perimeter of said shielding plate is circular (See annotated Fig. 2 of Dietz below, outer perimeter Y of plate 30 is depicted to be circular).
Dietz as modified does not explicitly disclose said outer perimeter of said inlet component is
circular.
However, regarding the shape of said outer perimeter of said inlet component, the courts have
held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), [t]he court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B.
PNG
media_image2.png
922
476
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Dietz
PNG
media_image1.png
433
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz
Regarding claim 10, Dietz as modified discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above), wherein said plurality of apertures of said intermediate component is configured to restrict flow into said cryopump to a predetermined flow rate (The plurality of apertures formed between the legs of the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32, which correspond the intermediate component as claimed, have the same structure as the claimed apertures and are capable of functioning in the manner claimed).
Regarding claim 11, Dietz as modified discloses a cryopump (Dietz, Fig. 1, vacuum pump 15; Pg. 7, vacuum pump 15 shown is a cryopump) comprising:
said inlet of said cryopump (Dietz, Fig. 1, the inlet of passage 14);
a refrigerator unit (Dietz, Fig. 2, cooler 27, rod 23);
said cryopanel, wherein said cryopanel is configured to be cooled by said refrigerator unit (Dietz, Fig. 2, cooled radiation protection shield 22, pump surfaces 24; Pg. 6, In Figure 2, the passage 14 is shown in the bottom 13. The vacuum pump 15 is fastened to the high vacuum flange 20 directly below the passage 14. In the present case, the vacuum pump 15 is a cryopump that has a housing 21 attached to the high vacuum flange 20. The housing 21 contains a pot-shaped, cooled radiation protection shield 22, which forms the first stage of a cold finger. The pump surfaces 24 are arranged in the pump chamber 25 on a rod 23. The pump surfaces 24 form the second stage of the cryopump. They have a temperature of the order of 10 K. The pump chamber 25 is covered with a guide device 26 consisting of fins, which is arranged in the inlet opening of the pump below the high vacuum flange 20); and
said flow restrictor according to claim 1, said flow restrictor being mounted in said inlet of said cryopump such that said flow restrictor restricts a flow of gas into said inlet of said cryopump (see the combination of references used in the rejection of claim 1 above; Further, the flow restrictor of claim 1 restricts the flow of gas into the inlet of the passage 14 of the vacuum pump 15 by at least requiring the gas to flow around the shielding plate 30 and through the legs of the lattice-shaped carrier 31 on the way into the passage 14).
Regarding claim 12, Dietz discloses a method of altering a cryopump (Fig. 1, vacuum pump 15) comprising:
removing a throttle plate mounted across an inlet of said cryopump for limiting flow into said cryopump (Fig. 1, inlet of passage 14); and
replacing said throttle plate with a flow restrictor (Fig. 1, radiation shield 17, bottom 13; Further, the Dietz discloses its radiation shield to be an improving over the prior art (Pg. 3, a vacuum chamber in such a way that the tolerable radiation can be increased without impairing the operation of the vacuum pump) and is interpreted herein to be an implicit disclosure of replacing the radiation shields as disclosed by Dietz, which restrict flow, with known flow restriction element in the prior art since it has been held in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom (MPEP 2144.01)) comprising:
an inlet component for providing a gas flow path into said cryopump, said inlet component defining an orifice (Fig. 1 of Dietz depicts bottom 13 to define passage 14 wherein gas is allowed to flow);
a shielding plate obscuring said gas flow path through said inlet component, said shielding plate having an outer perimeter (Fig. 2, plate 30; Further, plate 30 of Dietz obscures the gas flow path through the passage 14 as gas is forces to flow around the plate 30 between the lattice-shaped carrier 31 before entering the passage 14; See annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz below, outer perimeter Y of plate 30); and
an intermediate component linking said shielding plate to said inlet component such that said shielding plate extends from the intermediate component to the outer perimeter, said intermediate component comprising a plurality of apertures, said plurality of apertures defining gas flow paths to the orifice of the inlet component (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts lattice-shaped carrier 31 to be connected to the plate 30 which links the plate 30 to the bottom 13 via the contact ring 32 and further depicts a plurality of apertures which define gas flow paths between the legs of the lattice-shaped carrier 31; See annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz below, plate 30 extends radially outward from the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32, which correspond the intermediate component as claimed, to the outer perimeter Y of the plate 30);
wherein said inlet component is configured in a plane parallel to and axially offset from said shielding plate by said intermediate component, such that when mounted in the inlet of said cryopump, said inlet component lies between a pumping chamber of said cryopump and said shielding plate (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts the bottom 13 to be in a plane parallel to and axially offset from plate 30 by the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32 such that the bottom 13 lies between pump chamber 25 and plate 30); and
said shielding plate is configured to shield said gas flow path through said inlet component orifice such that said orifice defined by said inlet component is located between said shielding plate and a cryopanel within said cryopump and there is no direct line of sight path through said intermediate component and said inlet component to said cryopanel within said cryopump (Fig. 2 of Dietz depicts the passage 14 to be located between the plate 30 and cooled radiation protection shield 22 and pump surfaces 24 and there is no direct line of sight path through the lattice-shaped carrier 31 and contact ring 32, which correspond to the intermediate component as claimed, and the bottom 12, which corresponds to the inlet component as claimed, to the cooled radiation protection shield 22 and pump surfaces 24, which correspond to the cryopanel as claimed, within said vacuum pump 15); and
wherein an outer perimeter of said inlet component extends beyond the outer perimeter of said shielding plate and the outer perimeter of said shielding plate extends beyond a perimeter of the orifice defined by the inlet component (Annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz below depicts an outer perimeter X of bottom 13 to extend beyond an outer perimeter Y of plate 30 and the outer perimeter Y of the plate 30 extends beyond a perimeter Z of the passage 14).
However, Dietz does not explicitly disclose said shielding plate is cooled by said cryopump.
Tanaka teaches said shielding plate is cooled by said cryopump (Col. 7, lines 19-23, The first stage panel 32 is fixed on the end portion of the radiation shield 16 towards the shield opening 31, and is cooled to a temperature substantially equal to that of the radiation shield 16; Col. 9, lines 3-10, operating the cryopump 10, the inside of the vacuum chamber 80 is evacuated to the degree of approximately 1 Pa by using other appropriate roughing pump prior to its operation. Subsequently the cryopump 10 is operated. The first cooling stage 22 and the second cooling stage 24 are cooled by driving the refrigerator 12, allowing the radiation shield 16, the first-stage panel 32 and the second-stage panel 14, which are thermally connected to the stages, also to be cooled).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method of altering a cryopump of Dietz of claim 12 to include the step or limitation of wherein said shielding plate is cooled by said cryopump as taught by Tanaka. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because it becomes possible that both a reduced influence of the radiation heat and an improved pumping speed of the cryopump are realized (Tanaka, Col. 9, lines 48-50).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 03rd, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 5-6 of the response, “Further, Dietz indicates that prior art shields that are cooled by the cryopump should not be used as a radiation shield. Specifically, Dietz states that: "Although a cryogenic pump has a shielding guide device for incident thermal radiation, it is located in the interior of the pump housing, so that the heat absorbed by the pump remains in the interior of the pump housing." (Translation of last sentence of first paragraph of page 2 from Espacenet) Thus, Dietz teaches away from using a cryopump to cool radiation screen 17. In light of this, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is not shown by nor obvious from Dietz.” However, this argument is not persuasive as the disclosure of Dietz is not explicitly teaching away from cooling the radiation shield with the cryopump, but merely providing explanation of one of many possible arrangements for a radiation shield and a cryopump, this is further evident by the teachings of Tanaka which explicitly teach a known arrangement in which the radiation shield is cooled by the cryopump (Tanaka, Col. 7, lines 19-23, The first stage panel 32 is fixed on the end portion of the radiation shield 16 towards the shield opening 31, and is cooled to a temperature substantially equal to that of the radiation shield 16; Col. 9, lines 3-10, operating the cryopump 10, the inside of the vacuum chamber 80 is evacuated to the degree of approximately 1 Pa by using other appropriate roughing pump prior to its operation. Subsequently the cryopump 10 is operated. The first cooling stage 22 and the second cooling stage 24 are cooled by driving the refrigerator 12, allowing the radiation shield 16, the first-stage panel 32 and the second-stage panel 14, which are thermally connected to the stages, also to be cooled). The rejections of independent claims 1 and 12 are maintained. The rejections of dependent claims 4-6 and 8-11 are also maintained for at least the reasons described herein.
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 DEVON T MOORE whose telephone number is 571-272-6555. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:30-5.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/DEVON MOORE/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 January 07th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763