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 Objections
Claim 18 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 should be dependent upon claim 17 as “a first link” is introduced in claim 17, and not claim 16. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 12-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Seitz US 2008/0302989.
Regarding claim 1, Seitz discloses an inspection system (Figs. 2a-2c and 4) comprising:
a chamber;
a valve (Figs. 2a-2c) configured to seal the chamber to provide a vacuum environment, the valve comprising:
a first movable member 4, a second movable member 22, and a third movable member 24;
a first link 13 coupled to the first movable member and the second movable member such that when the second movable member is moved laterally and the third movable member is stopped, the first link exerts a force on the first movable member that causes the first movable member to move towards a surface and press against the surface to form a vacuum seal; and
a second link 10b coupled to the first movable member and the third movable member such that when the first link causes the first movable member to move, the second link exerts a force on the first movable member that limits movement of the first movable member such that the first movable member moves towards the surface with a limited offset ([0075]).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the third movable member is stopped when the third movable member does not move (inherent that it is stopped when it does not move).
Regarding claim 4, wherein the first link is configured to elastically deform while exerting a force on the first movable member([0056]-[0057], polypropylene is somewhat elastic).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the elastic deformation occurs such that there is substantially no frictional force between the first movable member and the first link ([0029], [0039]).
Regarding claim 6, wherein the elastic deformation occurs such that there is substantially no frictional force between the first link and second movable member ([0029], [0039]).
Regarding claim 7, wherein the first link is configured to limit rotation of the first movable member (see Figs. 2a-2c and 4).
Regarding claim 12, wherein the second link is configured to limit rotation of the first movable member (see Figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding claim 13, further comprising a shield on any one of the first movable member, the second movable member, or the third movable member (23 is seen as a shieldon the first movable member).
Regarding claim 14, wherein the first movable member comprises a sealing component 23.
Regarding claim 15, Seitz discloses a valve (Figs. 2a-2c) comprising:
a first movable member 4, a second movable member 22, and a third movable member 24;
a first link 13 coupled to the first movable member and the second movable member such that when the second movable member is moved laterally and the third movable member is stopped, the first link exerts a force on the first movable member that causes the first movable member to move towards a surface and press against the surface to form a vacuum seal (see Figs. 2a-2c and 4); and
a second link 10b coupled to the first movable member and the third movable member such that when the first link causes the first movable member to move, the second link exerts a force on the first movable member that limits movement of the first movable member such that the first movable member moves towards the surface with a limited offset ([0075], “an exactly perpendicular movement”).
Regarding claim 16, Seitz discloses a valve (see Figs. 2a-2c and 4) comprising:
a movable member 4 configured to receive a force that causes the movable member to move towards a surface and press against the surface to form a vacuum seal (Fig. 2c), and wherein when the movable member moves towards the surface, the movable member is configured to receive a force that limits movement of the movable member (see Figs. 2a-2c) such that the movable member moves towards the surface with a limited offset ([0075], “an exactly perpendicular movement”)..
Regarding claim 17, wherein the movable member is configured to receive the force that causes the movable member to move towards the surface and press against the surface to form the vacuum seal from a first link 13.
Regarding claim 18, wherein the movable member is a first movable member 4 and the first link 13 is coupled to the first movable member and a second movable member 22, such that when the second movable member is moved laterally and a third movable member 24 is stopped, the first link exerts the force on the first movable member that causes the first movable member to move towards the surface and press against the surface to form the vacuum seal (see Figs. 2a-2c).
Regarding claim 19, wherein the movable member is configured to receive the force that limits movement of the movable member such that the movable member moves towards the surface with the limited offset from a second link 10b.
Regarding claim 20, wherein the movable member is a first movable member 4 and a second link 10b is coupled to the first movable member and a third movable member 24, such that when a first link causes the first movable member to move the second link exerts a force on the first movable member that limits movement of the first movable member such that the first movable member moves towards the surface with the limited offset ([0075], “an exactly perpendicular movement”).
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.
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) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz US 2008/0302989.
Regarding claim 3, Seitz is silent as to the distance of the limited offset and that it is less than 0.2 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the distance of the limited offset to be less than 0.2 mm as a matter of simple substitution in order to keep the distance small and/or both Seitz and applicant’s device are for vacuum gate valves thus would be obvious to fit what is being valved.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seitz US 2008/0302989 in view of Ehrne et al. US 20110175011.
Regarding claim 8, Seitz lacks the second link is configured to elastically deform while exerting a force on the first movable member. Ehrne discloses “this connection could have elasticity, in order to allow a certain amount of adaptation of the valve plate 5 to the valve seat 4 in the closed position of the valve plate 5” (see [0047]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second link of Seitz elastically deform as disclosed by Ehrne while exerting a force on the first movable member of Seitz as a matter of simple substitution of an elastic material as the material of the second link of Seitz and/or to provide less rigidity to the second link so that it would bend and not break.
Regarding claim 9, Seitz in view of Ehrne provides the elastic deformation occurs such that there is substantially no frictional force between the second link and first movable member.
Regarding claim 10, Seitz in view of Ehrne provides the elastic deformation occurs such that there is substantially no frictional force between the second link and third movable member.
Regarding claim 11, Seitz in view of Ehrne provides the elastic deformation occurs such that there is substantially no frictional force between the first movable member and the surface.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jee and Komino disclose valves having multiple movable members and a limited offset.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN BASTIANELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-4921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Craig Schneider, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3607 or Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/John Bastianelli/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753
571-272-4921
Prosecution Insights