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 July 10th, 2026 in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on April 14th, 2026. Per Applicant's response, Claims 1 & 9 have been amended. All other claims have been left in their previously-presented form. Consequently, Claims 1-2, 4-6, & 8-13 still remain pending in the instant application, with Claim 8 remaining withdrawn. The Examiner has considered each of Applicant’s amendments and/or arguments, and they will be addressed below.
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 1-2 & 4-6 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 has been amended to now recite: “while the vacuum pump is continuously running: receiving a stop signal sent in order to stop the running of the vacuum pump, and after receiving the stop signal, controlling the vacuum pump to keep the vacuum pump running until the internal humidity within the vacuum pump is below a second threshold.”; this limitation renders the claim indefinite because the required functionality of the invention cannot be discerned. In this instance, a conflict in scope exists with the body of Claim 1, rendering the meaning of the claim unclear. Applicant’s amendments have added a new primary limitation now reciting “while the vacuum pump is continuously running:” before a set of secondary limitations “receiving a stop signal sent in order to stop the running of the vacuum pump, and after receiving the stop signal, controlling the vacuum pump to keep the vacuum pump running until the internal humidity within the vacuum pump is below a second threshold”. As such, while the primary limitation requires the vacuum pump to be “continuously running”, the secondary limitations following it instead define a limited period of running before vacuum pump stoppage. Stated another way, the qualifying limitation requires continuous vacuum pump running (i.e. without stoppage) whereas the following secondary limitations below define a state of vacuum pump stoppage that is included within the “continuously running” period. This conflict in claim scope between claim limitations makes it impossible to know what functionality is actually being required in the claim. Stated another way, it is not clear how a vacuum pump could be both 1) “continuously running”, while also being 2) stopped during the “continuously running” period. This issue results due to Applicant’s claim construction, in which both of the secondary limitations noted above fall under the qualifier language of the primary limitation. As such, due to the construction of Applicant’s claim limitations, an impossibility appears to be claimed, in which a vacuum pump is both 1) always running and 2) sometimes stopped. For these reasons, the claim is rendered indefinite.
As far as the examiner understands the invention, it appears that by “continuously running”, Applicant means that there is some period of vacuum pump operation that is continuous prior to stopping the pump. However, the language does not mean (nor require) that the vacuum pump has never been previously stopped, nor does it mean that pump will never be stopped. To the contrary, the claim language is clear that “continuously running” includes some period of vacuum pump stoppage. Therefore, given these facts, for examination purposes herein, the Examiner has interpreted the limitations noted above as requiring 1) some period of continuous vacuum pump operation, regardless of whether the pump has been previously stopped or not, and 2) stoppage of the continuously running vacuum pump when its internal humidity is below a second threshold.
Appropriate corrections are required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 10th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Examiner’s responses can be seen below.
In regards to Applicant’s argument towards Claim 1 that “Since Yoda stops the vacuum pump after receiving the water full indication, Yoda does not continuously run the vacuum pump after receiving the stop signal until the internal humidity within the vacuum pump is below a threshold”, the examiner must respectfully disagree. Respectfully, Applicant’s interpretation of Claim 1 appears to be much narrower in scope than is actually required by the current claim language. As far as the examiner understands, Applicant’s primary position appears to be based on Applicant interpreting the phrase “continuously running” as precluding all prior stoppage of the vacuum pump before the “continuously running” state, which Applicant concludes overcomes the teachings of Yoda. Respectfully, preclusion of prior pump stoppage is not required, suggested, nor implied by the claim language, and thus, does not overcome the teachings of Yoda. In this regard, there is nothing in the claim nor the originally filed speciation defining the phrase “continuously running” as precluding any prior stoppage period of the vacuum pump. There is simply no claim language or disclosure requiring, suggesting, or even implying as much. The Examiner respectfully notes that given the language of Claim 1, “continuously running” simply requires a period of time in which the vacuum pump is in operation, without stopping, until the internal humidity within the vacuum pump is below a second threshold. There is no claim language (or implication therein) precluding prior stoppages of the vacuum pump before the continuous running period begins. Given these facts, the Examiner must respectfully maintain that Yoda does, in fact, continue to disclose Applicant’s invention as recited in Claim 1. In particular, Yoda teaches to continuously run the vacuum pump during a “drying operation” upon receiving the stop signal 116 (i.e. a control signal from controller 39 which initiates drying of the pump and subsequent stoppage of the vacuum pump; para. 26; “The completion of the discharge of the water stored in the buffer tank 33 is determined by the control means 39 counting a predetermined time using a timer. The predetermined time count is determined in step 115. This predetermined time count and the opening of the second vacuum break valve 43 are AND conditions, and when these are met, the vacuum pump 36 is started for drying operation in step 116”) until the internal humidity within the vacuum pump is below a second threshold (i.e. controller 39 keeps the vacuum pump running to “sufficiently dry the inside” based on a timer; paras. 26 & 29). Given all of these facts, the Examiner must respectfully maintain that the Nemoto-Yoda combination of prior art does, in fact, continue to disclose Applicant’s amended Claim 1. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
For the sake of expeditious prosecution, the examiner strongly recommends that Applicant more clearly and distinctly define (in the language of Claim 1): 1) the beginning and end of the “continuously running” period, 2) the relationship between the “continuously running” period and vacuum pump stoppage, 3) the particular function(s) that occur during the “continuously running” period, and 4) the particular function(s) that occur during the vacuum pump stoppage. The Examiner reminds Applicant that grouping all functionalities under “while the vacuum is continuously running” (as currently recited) creates indefiniteness within the claim and should be avoided in future claim constructions.
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 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 to previous office action).
In regards to independent Claim 1, 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)
While Nemoto discloses much of Applicant’s recited invention, he does not further disclose: while the vacuum pump is continuously running: receiving a stop signal sent in order to stop the running of for the vacuum pump, and after receiving the stop signal, controlling the vacuum pump to keep the vacuum pump running until the internal humidity within the vacuum pump is below a second threshold, as recited in Claim 1.
However, such operation 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 continuously running the vacuum pump in a “drying operation” (para. 26), and during this drying operation, receiving a stop signal to stop the drying/running of the vacuum pump (i.e. the pump runs/dries itself continuously until a stop signal (“a predetermined time set by the timer in the control unit 39”; para. 26) is received) that defines when the internal humidity within the vacuum pump is below a second threshold (Fig. 2; i.e. “sufficiently dry the inside”; paras. 26 & 29). Yoda concludes 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. starting and continuously running the vacuum pump until the internal humidity is below a threshold based on a designated drying timer) 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).
Claim(s) 5 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 Claim 5, 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 9-13 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Applicant’s amendments filed on July 10th, 2026 have overcome the previously applied prior art rejections. In view of these amendments, the examiner has performed an updated prior art search and has determined that the best available prior art fails to disclose or render obvious the invention now being recited in Claim 9. As such, Claims 9-13 are found to be novel and non-obvious over the best available prior art.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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
Prosecution Insights