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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the appeal brief filed on June 08th, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New
grounds of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two
options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113
(if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal
brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to
the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they
were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the
amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
[ 4 ]
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed June 08th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pg. 8 of the Appeal Brief, “Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and is directed to a cryopump in which the flow restrictor is mounted in the inlet of the cryopump. Appellant respectfully submits that the Examiner erred in asserting that the combination of Dietz and Tanaka showed the flow restrictor of claim 1 mounted in an inlet of a cryopump. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner appeared to assert that passage 14 of Dietz was an inlet of a cryopump. Appellant respectfully submits that Examiner erred in making this assertion. Passage 14 does not form any part of the cryopump. Instead, passage 14 is an opening in a vacuum chamber wall 12. The cryopump is mounted below passage 14 and the inlet of the cryopump is thus also positioned below passage 14. Instead of being mounted to the inlet of a cryopump, radiation shield 17 is mounted to vacuum chamber wall 12. This can be seen from the fact that the cryopump could be removed from vacuum chamber wall 12 independently of radiation shield 17. Mounting a radiation shield to a passage that leads to an inlet of a cryopump is not the same as mounting a flow restrictor in the inlet of the cryopump. As such, Appellant respectfully submits that claim 11 is additionally patentable over the combination of Dietz and Tanaka.”
However, this argument is not persuasive as the Examiner’s BRI of “an inlet of said cryopump” is entirety of the flow path between the vacuum chamber 10 and the vacuum pump 15 that includes the inlet passage 14 (See Fig. 1-2 of Dietz). See the rejection of claim 11 below.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11, line 1: “A cryopump” should read “The cryopump”
Claim 11, line 7-8: “a flow of gas” should read “a flow of the gas”
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, and 8, 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Dietz et al. (WO 2004092585), hereinafter Dietz
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, said shielding plate is cooled by 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; Moreover, as there is no thermal insulation between the radiation shield 17 and the coldfinger of the cryopump the teachings of Dietz at least imply the radiation shield 17 is cooled by the cryopump 15 as the entire inside of the vacuum pump 15 and the vacuum space 11 are in thermal communication including the radiation shield 17 which sits in between vacuum pump 15 and the vacuum space 11 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)).
PNG
media_image1.png
433
509
media_image1.png
Greyscale
s
Annotated Fig. 1 of Dietz
Regarding claim 4, Dietz discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see 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 discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 4 (see the rejection of claim 1 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 discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see 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 discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see 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 10, Dietz discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see 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 discloses a cryopump (Fig. 1, vacuum pump 15; Pg. 7, vacuum pump 15 shown is a cryopump) comprising:
said inlet of said cryopump (Fig. 1, the inlet of passage 14);
a refrigerator unit (Fig. 2, cooler 27, rod 23);
said cryopanel, wherein said cryopanel is configured to be cooled by said refrigerator unit (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 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).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz et al. (WO 2004092585), hereinafter Dietz.
Regarding claim 9, Dietz discloses the flow restrictor according to claim 1 (see 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 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
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dietz et al. (WO 2004092585), hereinafter Dietz in view of Peterson (US Patent No. 4,611,467), hereinafter Peterson.
Regarding claim 12, Dietz discloses a cryopump (Fig. 1, vacuum pump 15) comprising:
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, said shielding plate is cooled by 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; Further, as there is no thermal insulation between the radiation shield 17 and the coldfinger of the cryopump the teachings of Dietz at least imply the radiation shield 17 is cooled by the cryopump 15 as the entire inside of the vacuum pump 15 and the vacuum space 11 are in thermal communication including the radiation shield 17 which sits in between vacuum pump 15 and the vacuum space 11 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)); 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 a method of altering the cryopump comprising:
removing a throttle plate mounted across the inlet of said cryopump for limiting flow into said cryopump; and
replacing said throttle plate with a flow restrictor.
Peterson teaches replacing a throttling valve of a cryopump with a flow restrictor (Fig. 1, cryopump 20, orifice plate 35, orifice holes 36; Col. 2, lines 1-31, In some systems a throttle valve has been positioned between the cryopump and the work space. The throttle valve serves to create a pressure differential between the work space and the cryopump by restricting the gas flow between the two. By varying the restriction of the throttle valve, the pressure in the work chamber can be varied while minimizing the flow of inert gas into the chamber and ultimately to the cryopump. Throttle valves add to the complexity of the system and have not been completely successful. Throttle valves held at ambient temperatures may restrict flow of water vapor and the like to the cooled surfaces which capture the water vapor. Such restriction of flow of undesired gases as well as flow of inert gases may result in contamination of the work space. To avoid that problem, frontal valves are more usually cooled to condense and retain the water vapor upstream of the flow restriction. As such, the throttle valves may perform as second stage arrays. A disadvantage of cooled throttle valves is that the condensed water vapor can interfere with the mechanism of the throttle valve and thus prevent or limit its operation after cooldown of the system. Also, the valve adds undesired complexity to the system. As an alternative to a variable throttle valve, a restriction in the form of a cooled orifice plate has been described in my prior U.S. Pat. No. 4,449,373. In that system, a plate cooled by the first stage of a cryogenic refrigerator has a plurality of circular orifices which restrict flow of gas from the work chamber into the cryopump. That approach has the advantage of structural simplicity with no moving parts; Col. 5, lines 3-24, Although the present orifice plate is not as readily varied as more complex throttle valves, it has the great advantage of simplicity. Further, because of freezing, past throttle valves have not always been completely variable except when warmed to near ambient temperature and thus failed to provide an expected advantage. Further, once the throttling action of a valve is established, there is generally little need to vary the valve. As a result, typical expensive and complex throttle valves are often only used during the initial setup of a system. The present invention provides that variability during the system setup without the added complexity of a variable throttle valve. While the invention has been particularly shown and described with reference to a preferred embodiment thereof, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes in form and details may be made therein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. For example, the invention is not limited to sputtering and in some applications may even restrict flow of reactive gases).
Dietz fails to teach a method of altering the cryopump comprising: removing a throttle plate mounted across the inlet of said cryopump for limiting flow into said cryopump; and replacing said throttle plate with a flow restrictor, however Peterson teaches that it is a known method in the art of cryopumps to include replacing a throttling valve of a cryopump with a flow restrictor. This is strong evidence that modifying Dietz as claimed would produce predictable results (i.e. providing the great advantage of simplicity (Peterson, Col. 5, lines 3-5)). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dietz by Peterson and arrive at the claimed invention since all claimed elements were known in the art and one having ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no changes in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded the predictable result of providing the great advantage of simplicity (Peterson, Col. 5, lines 3-5).
Conclusion
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 August 13th, 2026
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights