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 .
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the limitation “a calculation processing device” in claims 1 and 9 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “calculation” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a calculation processing device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a central processing unit (CPU) and a memory of a computer and a computer program” [0044]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof;
the limitation “a diagnostic device” in claims 1 and 8 includes a generic/nonce term “device” coupled with function “diagnostic” without reciting sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. A return to the specification provides the limitation “a diagnostic device” can be implemented in various ways, such as “a central processing unit (CPU) and a memory of a computer and a computer program” [0044]. Therefore, the limitation is interpreted as the same or equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend 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 avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 3 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 3 recites the limitation "the frequency components" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the limitation has been interpreted as “the plurality of frequency components”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 5 and 7-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizuno et al. (2020/0263907).
Regarding claim 1, Mizuno discloses a cryocooler diagnostic system comprising:
a cryocooler (10) including a pressure sensor (50) that measures a pressure inside the cryocooler (see figure 2);
a calculation processing device (the processing unit 60; the calculation process in step S12 of the process unit 60; paragraphs [0039]-[0040]) communicably connected to the pressure sensor (50) and configured to:
receive a measured pressure waveform (see figure 3) indicating the pressure inside the cryocooler measured by the pressure sensor (10; see figure 3), and
calculate an amplitude (the peak of the waveform) of a drive frequency (the wave cycles pass per second) of the cryocooler (10) or of a frequency component that is an integer multiple of the drive frequency (noted that alternative limitation; the “amplitude” limitation has been addressed) from the measured pressure waveform (see figures 3-4); and
a diagnostic device (the diagnostic device which includes the sensor 50 and the processing unit 60; the determination process in steps S14, S16 and S18 of figure 4 which are carried out by the process unit 60; paragraphs [0022] and [0039]-[0040]) communicably connected to the calculation processing device (see figure 4) and configured to:
receive the amplitude (the peak of the waveform shown in figure 3) calculated by the calculation processing device (60; see figures 3-4), and
diagnose the cryocooler (10) based on the amplitude (the peak of the waveform; see steps S14, S16 and S18 of figure 4).
Regarding claim 5, Mizuno discloses the calculation processing device (60) is configured to calculate expansion work (in paragraphs [0078]-[0079], applicant describes the expansion work as PV work of the expander which PV diagram calculated from the measured pressure waveform S1) of the cryocooler (10) based on the measured pressure waveform (the waveform S1; in paragraph [0035] and [0042], Mizuno discloses relationship between the pressure and volume fluctuations therefore, the system of Mizuno discloses the expansion magnitude is the claim expansion work).
Regarding claim 7, Mizuno discloses the cryocooler (10) includes an expander (the expander 14) and a pressure switching valve (40) that operates to generate a periodic pressure fluctuation in the expander (14; abstract and paragraph [0033]), and the pressure sensor (50) is disposed to measure the periodic pressure fluctuation generated in the expander (14; paragraph [0036]).
Regarding claim 8, Mizuno discloses a cryocooler diagnostic system comprising:
a diagnostic device (the diagnostic device which includes the sensor 50 and the processing unit 60; paragraphs [0022] and [0039]-[0040]) configured to:
acquire an amplitude (the peak of the pressure waveform) of a drive frequency (the wave cycles pass per second) of the cryocooler (10) or of a frequency component that is an integer multiple of the drive frequency (noted that alternative limitation; the “amplitude” limitation has been addressed; see figures 3-4), the amplitude (the peak) being calculated from a measured pressure waveform (see figure 3) indicating a pressure inside the cryocooler (10; see figures 3-4; step S12 of figure 4 performs the calculation process), and
diagnose a cryocooler based on the amplitude (the peak of the pressure waveform; see steps S14, S16 and S18 of figure 4).
Regarding claim 9, Mizuno discloses a cryocooler (10) comprising:
a pressure sensor (50) that measures a pressure inside the cryocooler (see figures 1-2); and
a calculation processing device (the processing unit 60) communicably connected to the pressure sensor (50; see figures 1-2) and configured to:
receive a measured pressure waveform (see figure 3) indicating the pressure inside the cryocooler (10) measured by the pressure sensor (50; see figures 1-3), and
calculate an amplitude (the peak of the waveform) of a drive frequency (the wave cycles pass per second) of the cryocooler (10) or of a frequency component that is an integer multiple of the drive frequency (noted that alternative limitation; the “amplitude” limitation has been addressed) from the measured pressure waveform (see step S12 of figure 4 for calculation process; see figures 3-4).
Regarding claim 10, Mizuno discloses a cryocooler diagnostic method comprising:
acquiring a measured pressure waveform (see figure 3) indicating a pressure inside a cryocooler (10; see figures 1-4);
calculating (the processing unit 60) an amplitude (the peak of the pressure waveform) of a drive frequency (the wave cycles pass per second) of the cryocooler (10) or of a frequency component that is an integer multiple of the drive frequency (noted that alternative limitation; the “amplitude” limitation has been addressed) from the measured pressure waveform (the step S12 of figure 4 performs the calculation process; see figures 3-4); and
diagnosing (the diagnostic device) the cryocooler (10) based on the amplitude (the peak of the waveform; the steps S14, S16 and S18 of figure 4 performs the diagnose process; see figures 3-4).
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.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Narasaki (EP3865789A1).
Regarding claim 2, Mizuno disclose the diagnostic device is configured to diagnose a failure mode (cryocooler degraded in step S16 of figure 4) of the cryocooler (10; see figure 4).
However, Mizuno fails to disclose the diagnostic device is configured to diagnose a plurality of failure modes of the cryocooler.
Narasaki teaches a cryogenic system (100) comprising a cryocooler [0012]. Wherein the cryogenic system includes a plurality of failure modes (see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Mizuno to incorporate multiple failure modes operation as taught by Narasaki such that the diagnostic system of Mizuno diagnoses multiple failure modes in order to improve the safety and longevity of the cryocooler.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuno in view of Arruda et al. (2007/0043534).
Regarding claim 6, Mizuno discloses the diagnostic device (the diagnostic device) is configured to receive the amplitude calculated (the calculated peak) by the calculation processing device (the processing unit 60; paragraphs [0022], [0039]-[0040]; see figure 4).
However, Mizuno fails to disclose the diagnostic device is disposed remotely from the calculation processing device, and is configured to receive the amplitude calculated by the calculation processing device via a communication network.
Arruda teaches a system and method for electronic diagnostic of a process vacuum equipment such as a cryopump comprising a diagnostic device (the diagnostics local server 2043) is disposed remotely (through internet) from the calculation processing device (a set of staging computers 2045), and is configured to receive the data calculated by the calculation processing device via a communication network (a communication network 2044; paragraph [0028]; see figure 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Mizuno to incorporate the claimed remotely network communication between the diagnostic device (the diagnostics local server) and calculation device (the computers) as taught by Arruda in order to provide remote diagnostic operation for the cryocooler.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 would 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.
Claim 4 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The primary reference Mizuno taken alone or in combination fails to disclose the claimed diagnoses feature of the cryocooler diagnostic system as required in claims 3-4. Also, the prior art of record fails to provide further teachings or motivation to modify the cryocooler diagnostic system of Mizuno in order to arrive the claim invention. Therefore, claims 3-4 are allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUN KAI MA whose telephone number is (571)-270-3530. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Jianying Atkisson can be reached on 5712707740. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/KUN KAI MA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763