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 November 18th, 2025 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on August 22nd, 2025 Per Applicant's response, Claims 1-2, 4-6, & 9-14 have been amended, and Claims 3, 7, & 15 have been cancelled. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-2, 4-6, & 8-14 now 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.
Drawings
The drawings were objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) have been provided by Applicant, thereby obviating this objection.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure was objected to because it contained legal phraseology therein (“means”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure in accordance with MPEP § 608.01(b) has been provided by Applicant, thereby obviating this objection.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 & 9-15 were objected to for minor informalities. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, thereby obviating these objections.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 4 should read “the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve closes.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-7 & 9-15 were 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. Applicant’s amendments have remedied these issues, thereby obviating these rejections.
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites the limitation "the exhaust" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed November 18th, 2025 have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments (see 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.
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) 1-2, 4, 6, 9-10, 12, & 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2003139076 to Nemoto (attached to previous office action) in view of JP 2004-293449 to Yoda (attached herein with machine translation).
In regards to independent Claims 1 & 9, and with particular reference to Figures 1-8, Nemoto discloses:
1. A method (Fig. 8) for operating a vacuum pump (Fig. 1) (“automatic control of a gas ballast mechanism of a scroll type vacuum pump”; para. 1) comprising the steps of: determining that an internal humidity in the vacuum pump (“humidity in the sealed space 14”; “a humidity detection sensor 23 is provided in the humidity detection hole 22”; para. 11) is above a preset threshold (“higher than the gas ballast open humidity set value (set value of variable resistor 24)”; para. 11) and in response, generating a control signal (“ON signal”) to operate a gas ballast valve (19) to reduce the internal humidity within the vacuum pump (“causing the solenoid valve 19 to open”; paras. 11-13 describe controlling a gas ballast valve 19 based on internal humidity within the vacuum pump exceeding a preset level detected by the internal humidity sensor 23)
9. A vacuum pump (Fig. 1) comprising a housing (4, 5) with an inlet (13) and an outlet (15) (“the fluid sucked in from the suction port 13 is compressed sequentially from the outer periphery of the scroll in the sealed space 14, passes through the exhaust passage 15 provided in the center”), a rotor shaft (10) disposed in the housing rotated by a motor (20), wherein at least one pump element (1) is connected to the rotor shaft and arranged in at least one pump chamber (14) defined by the housing (Fig. 1), a control unit (23-27; Fig. 7) to control operation of the vacuum pump and an internal humidity sensor (22, 23) connected to the control unit (Fig. 7) and configured to measure an internal humidity inside the vacuum pump (para. 11; “humidity in the sealed space 14”), characterized by a condensation reduction means (16, 18, 19) comprising a gas ballast valve (19) for reduction of condensation within the vacuum pump connected to the control unit (Fig. 7; paras. 8-12), wherein the control unit is configured to; receive an internal humidity value from the internal humidity sensor (“humidity in the sealed space 14”; para. 11) and to determine that the internal humidity value is greater than a preset threshold (“higher than the gas ballast open humidity set value (set value of variable resistor 24)”para. 11) and in response, operate the gas ballast valve (19) in order to reduce the internal humidity within the vacuum pump (paras. 8-12)
While Nemoto discloses much of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose that upon shutdown of the vacuum pump, running the vacuum pump until the internal humidity within the vacuum pump is below a second threshold, as now recited in Claims 1 & 9.
However, providing a vacuum pump drying procedure upon shutdown is well known in the art, as shown by Yoda. In particular, Yoda discloses a vacuum pump (36) (Fig. 1) for use in a water pumping system (Fig. 1), wherein the vacuum pump (36) is operated to reduce pressure within a pumping pipe (14) in order to assist with pumping of water. The vacuum pump (36) is operated under certain conditions (at step 106; Fig. 2; para. 22) and is then later shutdown once certain other conditions are met (at step 110; Fig. 2; paras. 25-26). Yoda goes on to disclose that upon shutdown of the vacuum pump (i.e. following shutdown of the pump), a pump drying process is initiated (step 116; Fig. 2; para. 29) in which vacuum pump is sufficiently dried internally such that the internal humidity falls below a threshold (“sufficiently dry the inside”; para. 29). Yoda concludes by stating that such a vacuum pump drying procedure is beneficial because “it becomes possible to eliminate a failure factor that may occur in the pump due to rust or the like occurring inside the vacuum pump 36 while the pump is stopped” (para. 29). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a more durable vacuum pump with that reduces the chances for internal pump failure, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Yoda in combination with those seen in Nemoto 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 Nemoto with the drying process taught in Yoda (i.e. performing a pump drying procedure following pump shutdown that reduces internal humidity below a threshold) in order to obtain predictable results; those results being a more durable and reliable vacuum pump that prevents internal buildup of rust and the like.
In regards to Claim 2, an internal humidity sensor (22, 23; see Claim 1 above) is in an exhaust of the vacuum pump (condition 1) or in a last pump chamber of the vacuum pump (condition 2) (in this case, condition 2 is met; the detection hole 22 is formed in the central/last pump chamber; see Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 4, by the control signal a gas ballast flow is increased (“the comparison circuit 26 outputs an ON signal to the relay 27, causing the solenoid valve 19 to open”) in dependence on the determined internal humidity (paras. 8-12).
In regards to Claim 6, the vacuum pump includes an inlet valve at an inlet of the vacuum pump and/or an outlet valve at an outlet of the vacuum pump (“discharges the fluid to the outside through an exhaust valve located in the center”; para. 5), wherein upon shutdown of the vacuum pump the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve close (this is implied by para. 7, which makes clear that high pressure gas is necessary to “push” open the exhaust valve 16; as such, without pump operation, the exhaust valve 16 would necessarily close).
In regards to Claim 10, the internal humidity sensor (22, 23) is in the exhaust (condition 1) or a last pump chamber (condition 2) (in this case, condition 2 is met; the detection hole 22 is formed in the central/last pump chamber; see Fig. 1).
In regards to Claim 12, a gas ballast flow is controlled in dependence on the internal humidity value (“causing the solenoid valve 19 to open”; paras. 11-13 describe controlling a gas ballast valve 19 based on internal humidity within the vacuum pump exceeding a preset level detected by the internal humidity sensor 23).
In regards to Claim 14, the condensation reduction means (16, 18, 19) includes an inlet valve at an inlet of the vacuum pump and/or an outlet valve (16) at an outlet of the vacuum pump (“discharges the fluid to the outside through an exhaust valve located in the center”; para. 5), wherein upon shutdown of the vacuum pump the inlet valve and/or the outlet valve close (this is implied by para. 7, which makes clear that high pressure gas is necessary to “push” open the exhaust valve 16; as such, without pump operation, the exhaust valve 16 would necessarily close).
Claim(s) 5, 11, & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nemoto-Yoda (applied above) and further in view of US 2010/0303644 to Moriyama.
In regards to Claims 5 & 13, Nemoto-Yoda discloses the invention of Claim 1, but does not further disclose that the vacuum pump includes a heating element and/or a cooling element, wherein a temperature of the heating element is increased and/or a temperature of the cooling element is increased in response to determining that the internal humidity is above the preset threshold, as claimed (Nemoto does not disclose any heating/cooling elements).
However, Moriyama discloses another vacuum pump system (1-1C; Figs. 1-8) comprising a housing (2) with an inlet and an outlet, a rotor shaft (“rotor”; para. 24) disposed in the housing rotated by a motor (para. 24), wherein at least one pump element (“rotary vanes”) is connected to the rotor shaft and arranged in at least one pump chamber (implicit) defined by the housing (Fig. 1), a control unit (8) to control operation of the vacuum pump (para. 25) and at least one internal humidity sensor (7; “condensation sensor 7 is a sensor for detecting condensation within the power supply device”) connected to the control unit (para. 26) characterized by condensation reduction means (4-6; “heating device, not shown”; para. 24) for reduction of condensation within the vacuum pump connected to the control unit (para. 26-32), wherein the control unit is configured to determine an internal humidity by the internal humidity sensor and control the condensation reduction means for reduction of condensation within the vacuum pump if the acquired humidity is above a preset threshold (paras. 26-32). Moriyama specifically discloses that the condensation reduction means include a heating element (“heating device, not shown”; para. 24) and/or a cooling element (“cooling water duct 4”; para. 24) connected to the vacuum pump, wherein by the control signal a temperature of the heating element is increased and/or a temperature of the cooling element is increased, as claimed, in order to regulate condensation levels within the vacuum pump (paras. 24-32 make clear that controller 8 controls the temperature of the heating element and/or the cooling element to increase if the determined humidity is above a preset threshold, thereby enhancing pump reliability by eliminating condensation therein). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a vacuum pump with improved condensation control, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Moriyama in combination with those seen in Nemoto 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 Nemoto’s vacuum pump with the actively-controlled heater and cooling water line of Moriyama in order to obtain predictable results; those results being improved reduction in humidity/condensation within the vacuum pump.
In regards to Claim 11, Nemoto discloses the invention of Claim 9, but does not further disclose that the condensation reduction means further comprises a warning signal, wherein the control unit activates the warning signal in response to determining that the internal humidity value is greater than the preset threshold.
However, Moriyama discloses another vacuum pump system (1-1C; Figs. 1-8) comprising a housing (2) with an inlet and an outlet, a rotor shaft (“rotor”; para. 24) disposed in the housing rotated by a motor (para. 24), wherein at least one pump element (“rotary vanes”) is connected to the rotor shaft and arranged in at least one pump chamber (implicit) defined by the housing (Fig. 1), a control unit (8) to control operation of the vacuum pump (para. 25) and at least one internal humidity sensor (7) connected to the control unit (para. 26) characterized by condensation reduction means (4-6; “heating device, not shown”; para. 24) for reduction of condensation within the vacuum pump connected to the control unit (para. 26-32), wherein the control unit is configured to determine the internal humidity by the internal humidity sensor and control the condensation reduction means for reduction of condensation within the vacuum pump if the acquired internal humidity is above a preset threshold (paras. 26-32). Moriyama goes on to specifically disclose that the condensation reduction means include a warning signal (11; Fig. 5; “the user is notified of the occurrence of condensation within the power supply device to enable the user to take measures against the condensation within the power supply device”; para. 39), wherein the control unit activates the warning signal if the internal humidity value is above a preset threshold (para. 39). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill desiring a vacuum pump with improved condensation control, it would have been obvious to utilize the techniques disclosed in Moriyama in combination with those seen in Nemoto 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 Nemoto’s vacuum pump with the warning/display system (11) of Moriyama in order to obtain predictable results; those results being improved reduction in internal humidity/condensation within the vacuum pump.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments filed November 18th, 2025 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