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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group II (claims 5-19) in the reply filed on 02/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “two parts, which can be detached from each other and attached preserving vacuum with an O-ring in between being both parts compressed with either an ISO-KF clamp or with bolts that enter in the body of one of them, having this body holes with threads for this purpose” in claim 15, and the "additional circular cavity to allocate an O-ring” in claim 16, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 10-19 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.
Regarding claim 10, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 15, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The limitation implies the limitation following it is only optionally required.
Regarding claim 16, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim 17, the phrase "may be" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The limitation implies the limitation following it is only optionally required.
Claims 11-14 and 18-19 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected base claim.
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 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 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hu et al. (CN 113970534).
Hu et al. disclose:
5. (original) A multiport vacuum chamber comprising: a multiport vacuum chamber (1) capable of being printed using vat photopolymerization additive manufacturing (note, the limitation “printed using vat photopolymerization additive manufacturing” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
7. (original) The multiport vacuum chamber of claim 5 wherein the multiport vacuum chamber has at least one standard ISO port (“the optical window glass is fixed by the ISO100 upper flange,” see English Translation of description).
8. (original) The multiport vacuum chamber of claim 5 wherein the multiport vacuum chamber has at least one standard KF port (“the blind plate is welded with a KF25 high vacuum valve,” see English Translation of description).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gu et al. CN 108163810).
Gu et al. teach:
5. (original) A multiport vacuum chamber (fig. 4) comprising: a multiport vacuum chamber (seen in fig. 4) capable of being printed using vat photopolymerization additive manufacturing (note, the limitation “printed using vat photopolymerization additive manufacturing” is considered a product-by-process limitation. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
8. (original) The multiport vacuum chamber of claim 5 wherein the multiport vacuum chamber has at least one standard KF port (“the right port adopts KF40 type; the front end adopts KF16 type, left port uses KF25 type,” see English Translation of description).
9. (original) The multiport vacuum chamber of claim 5 wherein: the multiport vacuum chamber has a top surface (153), bottom surface (154), first surface (155), second surface(151), third surface (152), and fourth surface (surface opposite 155); aKF25 port is integrated to the top surface (“port 153 uses a KF25 model”); and a first KF16 port (“port 155 is a KF16 type”) is integrated to the first surface.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. CN 108163810).
Gu et al. disclose the invention as essentially claimed, except for a threaded aperture is integrated to the second surface; a second KF 16 port is integrated to the third surface; and a fitting is integrated to the bottom surface.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Gu et al. to include a threaded aperture is integrated to the second surface; a second KF 16 port is integrated to the third surface; and a fitting is integrated to the bottom surface, since the Examiner takes Official Notice of facts by asserting that selecting and/or determining the desired connections to a vacuum system is old and well known in the art and of notorious character and serves only to "fill in the gaps" which might exist in the evidentiary showing made by the examiner to support a particular ground of rejection MPEP 2144.03. "
Claims 10, 12-15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrne (US 20060032240) in view of “Difference between CF, KF, and ISO Flanges” (EVP Profession Vacuum Solution, 2018 [retrieved on 2026-04-04]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www.evpvacuum.com/newsview-255-447-Difference_between_CF_KF_and_ISO_Flanges.html>).
Ehrne discloses:
10. (original) Multiport vacuum chamber (3, 9, fig. 8) capable of being made using vat photopolymerization additive manufacturing such as stereolithography or Digital Light Processing or other, consisting of a hollowed volume (as seen within 3 and 9) with standard ports, fittings for standard tubes ([0050] states “the connection flange 11 are constructed as a so-called "KF flange"”) and O-rings (at least O-ring seen between connection piece 27 and body 9, and O-ring 53) that include the presence of a safety release valve (14) or a hollow or fitting (hollow/fitting in which 27 is received/connected) for one.
12. (original) The multiport vacuum chamber of claim 10 wherein any or all the ISO standard port or ports embodied in the walls is a KF type ([0050] states “the connection flange 11 are constructed as a so-called "KF flange"”).
14. (original) Multiport vacuum chamber of claim 10 wherein an embodied tube fitting (in which 27 is connected) with or without thread presents a tolerance to accept metallic or plastic tubes (tube portion of 27) with sizes with or without corresponding thread for posterior gluing or threading and can allow the tube to get in a proportional length inside the vacuum chamber (portion of 27 is inserted in 9) or along all of it.
15. (original) Multiport vacuum chamber of claim 10 wherein the stereolithography or any other vat-photopolymerization additive process manufactured body of the chamber may be made in two parts (3, 9), which can be detached from each other and attached preserving vacuum with an O-ring (53) in between being both parts compressed with either a KF clamp (52) or with bolts that enter in the body of one of them, having this body holes with threads for this purpose.
17. (original) Multiport vacuum chamber of claim 10, wherein the vacuum chamber or one of its parts may be made of transparent resin (the limitation as a whole seems to be optional. Any of the parts may be made of transparent resin.).
18. (original) Multiport vacuum chamber of claim 10, wherein the wall thickness is sufficient to hold a superior pressure than the limit of the safety release valve (for normal operation, the walls would need to be sufficient to hold a superior pressure than the limit of the relief valve 26, otherwise the apparatus would break).
Ehrne does not explicitly disclose wherein the ports/fittings are ISO-KF; wherein any or all the ISO standard port or ports embodied in the walls is one or more of either of the following types, KF 10, KF16, KF 20, KF25, KF32, KF40, KF50, ISO 63, ISO 80, ISO 100, ISO 160, ISO 200,ISO 250, ISO 320, ISO 400, ISO 500 and ISO 630; wherein any or all of the ISO standard port or ports embodied in the walls of the chamber is one or more of either of the following types, CF1.33, CF2.75, CF4.50, CF6.00, CF8.00, CF10.00, CF12.00,CF14.00, CF16.50, CF2.12, CF3.38, CF4.62, CF6.75 and CF13.25; and wherein one of the ports presents an ISO thread to clamp said pressure release valve.
“Difference between CF, KF, and ISO Flanges” discloses CF, KF, and ISO are well known connections used in vacuum units.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Ehrne, such that the connections included standard CF, KF, and ISO connections, in a manner well known in the art.
Even though no specific size designation is explicitly disclosed, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select the KF, ISO, or CF port to be one or more of either of the following types, KF 10, KF16, KF 20, KF25, KF32, KF40, KF50, ISO 63, ISO 80, ISO 100, ISO 160, ISO 200,ISO 250, ISO 320, ISO 400, ISO 500 and ISO 630, or CF1.33, CF2.75, CF4.50, CF6.00, CF8.00, CF10.00, CF12.00,CF14.00, CF16.50, CF2.12, CF3.38, CF4.62, CF6.75 and CF13.25, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Further, the size would be known to one of ordinary skill to be selected based on the desired components that are being connected.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ehrne (US 20060032240) in view of “Difference between CF, KF, and ISO Flanges.” (EVP Profession Vacuum Solution, 2018 [retrieved on 2026-04-04]. Retrieved from the Internet: <URL: www.evpvacuum.com/newsview-255-447-Difference_between_CF_KF_and_ISO_Flanges.html>) further in view of Quartarone et al. (US 9995421).
Ehrne discloses the invention as essentially claimed, except for wherein one of the parts which is capable of being made with vat-photopolymerization additive manufacturing (such as stereolithography or Digital Light Processing) or the two of them presents an additional circular cavity to allocate an O-ring.
Quartarone et al. discloses a related flange fitting connection used in a vacuum system, wherein the connection includes an additional circular cavity (177, 129 or 123, 115) to allocate an O-ring, for the purpose of providing the deformation of the O-ring.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to further modify the invention of Ehrne, one or both of the chamber parts presents an additional circular cavity to allocate an O-ring, as taught by Quartarone et al., for the purpose of providing the deformation of the O-ring.
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 11would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. CN 105466778, RO 132064, and CN 110987887 each disclose related vacuum chambers with ports/fittings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA TIETJEN, whose telephone number is 571-270-5422. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (10:30AM-7:00PM CST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Tom Barrett can be reached at 571-272-4746, Ken Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MARINA A TIETJEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753