DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 6 February 2026 has been entered.
Claim 1-7 remain pending.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
NOT INVOKED DESPITE PRESENCE
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“valve element” in claim 1, 2; the term “valve” indicates that the element is a part of the structure of the valve, furthermore it is specifically defined as the element 32 in applicant’s disclosure.
“Valve element support member” in claims 2 and 3; the element is specifically defined as element 33 in applicant’s disclosure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 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 valve element is connected to the pressure receiving portion, and moves to the valve seat along with movement of the pressure receiving portion to the valve seat.” Applicant’s most recent amendment to claim 1 specifies that “when the valve element contacts with the valve seat and when the valve element is separated from the valve seat, the pressure receiving portion is arranged on the downstream side of a most downstream portion of the support portion.” This limitation makes clear that the claimed pressure receiving portion is not the same element as the valve element, and is separated from the valve seat both when open and closed.
Since the pressure receiving portion is separated from the valve element, there is no arrangement where “the pressure receiving portion [moves] to the valve seat.” The limitation is indefinite because the pressure receiving portion can not move to the valve seat with the valve element now that applicant has specified that the pressure receiving portion is separate from the valve element. Therefore, applicant has failed to particularly point out and claim the subject matter. Examiner recommends deleting the final recitation of “to the valve seat.” So that claim 1 recites “the valve element is connected to the pressure receiving portion, and moves to the valve seat along with movement of the pressure receiving portion.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawasaki (US 2013/0259712) in view of Seiz (US 3,369,476).
PNG
media_image1.png
512
322
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
508
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Kawasaki fig 14
Kawasaki fig 15
Claim 1, Kawasaki discloses a shut-off valve (6, par 0146-0152) arranged on a downstream side with respect to an exhaust port (exhaust port 3, par 00147) of a vacuum pump (vacuum pump 1, par , 0147), comprising:
a valve seat (valve seat is depicted as the portion of pipe the flap seals against while closed); a valve element (flap element of 6) arranged on the downstream side with respect to the valve seat and configured movable so as to contact the valve seat or separate from the valve seat (fig 14 and 15 shows the flap open with a dotted outline and closed with a solid outline).
Kawasaki does not disclose
a pressure receiving portion arranged on the downstream side with respect to the valve element and configured movable to the valve seat by receiving a pressure of gas flowing back to the valve seat; and
a valve element support member which extends to the downstream side from the valve element and to which the pressure receiving portion is fixed;
and a support portion slidably supporting the valve element support member,
wherein the pressure receiving portion is arranged on the downstream side of the valve element support member,
the valve element is connected to the pressure receiving portion, and
moves to the valve seat along with movement of the pressure receiving portion to the valve seat, and
when the pressure receiving portion receives a pressure of atmospheric air when the atmospheric air entry occurs, the atmospheric air does not reach the valve element, but the valve element also starts moving along with movement of the pressure receiving portion, and
when the valve element contacts with the valve seat and when the valve element is separated from the valve seat, the pressure receiving portion is arranged on the downstream side of a most downstream portion of the support portion.
PNG
media_image3.png
706
580
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Seiz fig 1
Seiz teaches a check valve (fig 1, 3) with a compression spring (6a) configured to bias the movable disc into the open position (valve is biased normally open, c 4 ln 3-4)
a pressure receiving portion (auxiliar valve member 10, c 4 ln 9) arranged on the downstream side with respect to a valve element (4) and configured movable to a valve seat (3) by receiving a pressure of gas flowing back to the valve seat (pressure at 10 causes 4 to close; c 5 ln 35-50); and
a valve element support member (9) which extends to the downstream side from the valve element and to which the pressure receiving portion is fixed (fig 1 shows that 10 is affixed to the end of 9);
and a support portion (cylinder 6) slidably supporting the valve element support member (6 supports 7, c 4 ln 30-45; 7 in turn supports 9),
wherein the pressure receiving portion is arranged on the downstream side of the valve element support member (10 is downstream of 9 for the normal direction of air flow caused by fan 2),
the valve element is connected to the pressure receiving portion (4 is connected to 10 via shaft 9), and
moves to the valve seat along with movement of the pressure receiving portion [to the valve seat] (movement of 10 toward the valve seat also moves valve member 4 to the valve seat, c 5 ln 40-45), and
when the pressure receiving portion receives a pressure of atmospheric air when the atmospheric air entry occurs (the valve closes to stop pressure waves carried by ventilating air from the outside, c 3 ln 2-5), the atmospheric air does not reach the valve element (the shock wave does not reach the valve member upper side before the valve closes, c 5 ln 50-53), but the valve element also starts moving along with movement of the pressure receiving portion (c 5 ln 40-50), and
when the valve element contacts with the valve seat and when the valve element is separated from the valve seat (10 is separated from 4), the pressure receiving portion is arranged on the downstream side of a most downstream portion of the support portion (10 is downstream from 4 at the end of 9, where it is downstream of the regular movement of air from fan 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the check valve (6) of Kawasaki with the check valve of Seiz for the expected result of preventing reverse flow from a normally open vent valve, to cause rapid closing that prevents minimal quantities of harmful ingredients from entering the passage through the normally open valve (c 1 ln 40-55).
Claim 2, Kawasaki in view of Seiz teaches the shut-off valve according to claim 1.
Seiz further teaches further comprising: a support portion slidably supporting the valve element support member (cylinder 6 support piston 7 and rod 9); and a spring member (spring 6a) arranged between the pressure receiving portion and the support portion around the valve element support member and biasing the valve element (c 4 ln 32-47), the valve element support member (9, 6 supports 9 via 7, id.), and the pressure receiving portion (10, 6 supports 10 via 7) to the downstream side.
Claim 3, Kawasaki in view of Seiz teaches the combination teaches the shut-off valve according to claim 2. Seiz further teaches wherein the valve element support member (9) is arranged inside the valve seat (9 is within the radial boundary of seat 3) in a radial direction (fig 1 shows that 9 passes through the radius of seat 3).
Claim 4, Kawasaki in view of Seiz teaches a vacuum pump (Kawasaki, fig 7A, vacuum pump 1, par , 0147) system comprising: a turbo-molecular pump (turbomolecular pump is first vacuum pump, par 0043) connected to a pumping target device (semiconductor fabrication chamber, par 0005); an auxiliary pump arranged (second vacuum pump 2, par 0043) on a downstream side with respect to an exhaust port of the turbo-molecular pump (fig 7A depicts pump 2 is downstream of exhaust port on turbomolecular pump 1 which leads to path 3); an exhaust flow path (3) connecting the turbo-molecular pump and the auxiliary pump to each other (fig 7A, fig 14, fig 15); and the shut-off valve according to claim 1, which is arranged on the exhaust flow path (valve 6 is in path 3), wherein the vacuum pump is the turbo-molecular pump (fig 14 and fig 15 depict this arrangement).
PNG
media_image4.png
448
428
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 5, Kawasaki in view of Seiz teaches the vacuum pump system according to claim 4, further comprising: a bypass flow path (Kawasaki, fig 15, bypass pipe 7, par 0148) connecting the pumping target device and the exhaust flow path to each other and bypassing the turbo-molecular pump (bypass pipe 7 bypasses first vacuum pump, par 0148), wherein the shut-off valve is arranged between the turbo-molecular pump and a joint portion (fig 15, the portion of 7 which is downstream of valve 8 and valve 6 is the joint portion shared by pump 1 and the bypass pipe 7) of the bypass flow path to the exhaust flow path (this portion of bypass pipe 7 is equivalent to path 3 which flows to second vacuum pump 2).
Claim 6, Kawasaki in view of Seiz teaches a vacuum pump comprising: a housing (Kawasaki, fig 2, pump casing 9 of pump 1, par 0101); a rotor (rotor 12) arranged in the housing; a suction port (fig 2, “SP” inlet port, par 0105) arranged at the housing; an exhaust port (“DP” discharge port with flange 26f, par 0105) arranged at the housing; and the shut-off valve (6) according to the shut-off valve according to wherein the valve seat is a portion of the housing around the exhaust port (evacuation passage component 3 is connected to flange 26f of the DP port, par 0105; fig 15 depicts valve 6 seating against the side port for pump 1, which is reasonably the same feature as the side port flange 26f in fig 2).
Claim 7, Kawasaki in view of Seiz teaches the shut-off valve according to claim 2 (Seiz), wherein the pressure of the atmospheric air received by the pressure receiving portion (10) when the atmospheric air entry occurs exceeds the biasing force of the spring member and moves the valve element towards the valve seat (Seiz, the pressure wave acting on 10 overcomes the bias of spring 6a and inertia of the valve 4 to close the valve 4 against seat 3, c 41-50)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746