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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 27th, 2026 has been entered.
Status of the Claims
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed with the Office on February 2nd, 2026 in response to the Final Office Action mailed on October 2nd, 2025. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-2, 9-12, & 14 have been amended, and Claims 4, 7, & 8 have been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-2, 5-6, 9-12, & 14-18 still remain pending in the instant application (Claims 15-18 remaining withdrawn). The Examiner has carefully considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5-6, & 9-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 8 should read “one or more pump connection ports for outputting”
Claim 9, line 5 should read “the first vacuum pump and the measured”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 4 has been cancelled, rendering this rejection moot.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed February 2nd, 2026, have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments (see updated rejections below).
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, 5, 9-12, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 6,419,455 to Rousseau et al.
In regards to independent Claim 1, and with particular reference to Figures 2-6, Rousseau et al. (Rousseau) discloses:
1. A pump apparatus (Fig. 3; 4, 6, 7’, 8) comprising: a first vacuum pump (4); a first pressure sensor (7’) for measuring an inlet pressure of the first vacuum pump (Fig. 3; col. 5, lines 10-12); at least one controller (8): generating a first control signal (81) for controlling the first vacuum pump (col. 5, lines 13-15); and generating a second control signal (82) for controlling a second vacuum pump (5) (col. 5, lines 17-20); wherein the second vacuum pump is external to the pump apparatus (Fig. 3) and the pump apparatus comprises one or more pump connection port (6) for outputting the second control signal to the second vacuum pump (Fig. 3; col. 5, lines 6-10); and the at least one controller is configured to control the first vacuum pump and the second vacuum pump based on the measured inlet pressure of the first vacuum pump (col. 5, lines 6-25).
In regards to Claim 2, the at least one controller (8) comprises at least one electronic processor and a memory device (Rousseau’s disclosures that “the observer is programmed” (col. 3, line 38) and “observer 8 implements a first algorithm 81, e.g. a PID algorithm” (col. 5, lines 13-15) clearly indicate that the observer includes an electronic processor that executes algorithms stored within a memory device; see also Fig. 3), the at least one electronic processor having: at least one electrical input (“ERROR”; Fig. 3) for receiving an input signal (9, 9’, 10, 21; Fig. 3); and at least one electrical output (15) for outputting the first control signal to the first vacuum pump and/or the second control signal to the second vacuum pump (Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 5, the at least one controller is configured to receive a pressure request signal (10; Fig. 3) indicating a target operating pressure for a process chamber (“a reference 10 for a final pressure state”; col. 5, lines 21-22).
In regards to Claim 9, the at least one controller comprises an input (“ERROR”; Fig. 3) for receiving an operating pressure signal (7) indicating an operating pressure in a process chamber (1; see Fig. 2); the at least one controller being is configured to receive a measured inlet pressure of the second vacuum pump (indicated by the pressure signal 7) and is configured to control operation of the first vacuum pump and/or and the second vacuum pump based on the measured inlet pressure of the first pump and the measured inlet pressure of the second vacuum pump in dependence on the operating pressure signal (col. 5, lines 6-25).
In regards to Claim 10, a first power supply (6 and the associated power line seen in Fig. 3) for supplying electric power to the first vacuum pump; and a second power supply (6 and the associated power line seen in Fig. 3) for supplying electric power to the second vacuum pump (“speed controller 6 which in turn powers separately and at variable frequency both the dry primary pump 4 and at least one secondary pump 5”; col. 5, lines 6-10).
In regards to Claim 11, Rousseau clearly discloses a power outlet for supplying electric power to the second vacuum pump (see Fig. 3; the power line/outlet extending from speed controller 6 and feeding power to the second vacuum pump 5).
In regards to Claim 12, the first vacuum pump (4) comprises a primary pump for a vacuum system (“dry primary pump 4”; col. 5, line 9; Fig. 3).
In regards to Claim 14, the second vacuum pump (5) is a secondary pump for a vacuum system (“secondary pump 5”; col. 5, line 10; Fig. 3).
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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rousseau (applied above) in view of US 2012/0282121 to Kieffer et al.
In regards to Claim 6, Rousseau discloses the invention of Claim 5, but does not further disclose at least one input device configured to generate the pressure request signal (10) in dependence on a user input, wherein the user input identifies one of a plurality of operating processes, the at least one controller being configured to generate the pressure request signal in dependence on the identified one of the plurality of operating processes, as claimed (in this case, Rousseau is silent as to the origin of his pressure request signal 10, and thus, cannot disclose it being supplied via user input).
However, as noted in the previous office action, Kieffer discloses another dual-pump apparatus (102) comprising a first pump (114), at least one controller (124): generating a first control signal (Fig. 1) for controlling the first pump (114); generating a second control signal (via 128) for controlling a second pump (120); wherein the second pump (120) is external to the pump apparatus (Fig. 1) and the pump apparatus (120) comprises one or more pump connection ports (128) for outputting the second control signal to the second pump (Fig. 1; "communication interface"; Abstract; see also paras. 4, 6, 25). Kieffer goes on to disclose at least one input device (130) configured to generate a pressure request signal (“A user desired ratio and/or pressure”; para. 27) in dependence on a user input (para. 27), wherein the user input identifies one of a plurality of operating processes (“selectable ratios”; para. 27; “different modes”; para. 29), the at least one controller being configured to generate the pressure request signal in dependence on the identified one of the plurality of operating processes (paras. 27-29). In other words, Kieffer clearly shows that it is well known in the art of multi-pump systems to allow a user to input one desired operating mode out of a plurality of possible operating modes (and thus, a specific pressure request signal) in order to achieve a desired operation for the pumps within system. Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a multi-pump system with user-based adjustability, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Kieffer in combination with those seen in Rousseau 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 Rousseau’s controller 8 with the user-based pressure input/adjustability taught in Kieffer in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a vacuum pump system that is more versatile in allowing a user to select which particular operating mode is most desired at a given time.
Conclusion
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