Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/717,250

CRYOPUMP

Non-Final OA §103§112
Filed
Jun 06, 2024
Examiner
ADENIJI, IBRAHIM M
Art Unit
3763
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Edwards Vacuum LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
67%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 2m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 67% — above average
67%
Career Allow Rate
77 granted / 115 resolved
-3.0% vs TC avg
Strong +39% interview lift
Without
With
+38.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 2m
Avg Prosecution
30 currently pending
Career history
145
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
47.6%
+7.6% vs TC avg
§102
19.6%
-20.4% vs TC avg
§112
31.3%
-8.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 115 resolved cases

Office Action

§103 §112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 Claims 1-6 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. In re claim 1, the phrase "an elongate vessel a distance" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether an elongate vessel a distance recites two separate structures, if it is meant to be one structure, or a component structures. As currently recited the subject-predicate relationships are ambiguous. For purposes of examination: as best understood by the Examiner, this phrase/term is interpreted as an elongate vessel distance. Claims 2-6 are rejected at least by virtue of its dependency. 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 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. Claims 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (US20130199210) in view of Takahashi (US 20140250923 A1). In re Claim 1, Oikawa discloses a cryopump (10) comprising: a vessel (38) comprising a radiation shield (30) having a frontal opening (12), said frontal opening (12) forming an inlet ([0054]: frontal opening forms an inlet to vessel 38) to said vessel (38); a frontal array (50) thermally coupled to said radiation shield (30) and mounted across said frontal opening (12); a cryopanel structure (18/32) mounted within said vessel (14); a two stage refrigerator (22, 24) extending into said vessel (extends into 38), a first stage (22) of said refrigerator (22,24) being thermally coupled to said radiation shield (30) and a colder second stage (24) of said refrigerator (22,24) being thermally coupled to said cryopanel structure (18); wherein said vessel (38) comprises an elongate vessel (40) a distance (See Fig.1 18 and 50 are necessarily separated by a distance) between a surface of said cryopanel structure (surface of top cryopanel of 18) closest to said frontal opening (12) and a surface of said frontal array (surface of 50) closest to said cryopanel structure (18) However, Oikawa does not explicitly teach, comprising between 0.6 and 1.2 times the diameter of said frontal opening. On the other hand, Takahashi teaches comprising between 0.6 and 1.2 times the diameter of said frontal opening ([0022]: The distance in the axial direction comprising the cover which included the opening may be about 0.5 to 1.5 times a distance among cryosorption panels). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Oikawa and to have modified them by having comprising between 0.6 and 1.2 times the diameter of said frontal opening, in order to increase high-speed pumping of non-condensable gas (See Takahashi [0222]), without yielding unpredictable results. In re Claim 2, Modified Oikawa teaches wherein said distance (Takahashi [0022]) is between 0.7 and 0.9 times the diameter of said frontal opening (Oikawa diameter of 12)| (See Takahashi [0022] were measurement can be adjusted to 0.8). In re Claim 3, Modified Oikawa teaches does not explicitly teach wherein the diameter of the frontal opening (diameter of 12) except for is between 20 and 21 cm (7.8 and 8.2 inches) and Modified Oikawa teaches said distance between said cryopanel structure (18) and said frontal array (50) except for is between 12 cm and 25 cm (4.7 and 10 inches). It would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify the length and size of the diameter and distance (See at least Takahashi [0022]) since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change is size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Claim 5, Modified Oikawa teaches wherein said frontal array (50) comprises a disk element (54) and an annular element (52), said disk element (54) and said annular element (52) being mounted axially displaced from each other said annular element (52) being mounted to be closer to said frontal opening (12) than said disk element (54), a diameter of said disk element (diameter of 54) being equal to or greater than a diameter of the aperture in said annular element (See Fig. 2 aperture of 52; 54 is concentric and necessarily has a greater diameter) and smaller than an outer diameter of said annular element (outer diameter of 52), said outer diameter of said annular element (outer diameter of 52) being equal to or greater than a diameter of said frontal opening (12). In re Claim 6, Modified Oikawa teaches wherein said frontal array (50) comprises an axially extending cylindrically-shaped element (32), said cylindrically-shaped element (32) connecting said disk element (54) and annular element (52), said cylindrically-shaped element (32) comprising a cylindrical surface ([0048]: cylindrical shape surface with 46), said cylindrical surface ([0046]) comprising a plurality of apertures (46). Claim 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (US20130199210) in view of Takahashi (US 20140250923 A1), further in view of Tsuyuki (US 20090038319 A1). In re Claim 4, Modified Oikawa teaches wherein said second stage (24) of said two stage refrigerator (22,24) is configured to maintain a temperature of said cryopanels (temperature of 18; See [0018] and [0039]). However, Modified Oikawa does not explicitly teach, to below 9K. On the other hand, Tsuyuki teaches below 9K ([0045]: second stage cooling is cooled at 4 K). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have taken the teachings of Modified Oikawa and to have modified them by maintaining the cryopanels of modified Oikawa to below 9K, in order to improve condensation and adsorption hydrogen and helium at the cryopanels (See Tsuyuki [0063] and [0066]), without yielding unpredictable results. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to IBRAHIM M ADENIJI whose telephone number is (571)272-5939. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 PM. 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 at 571-270-7740. 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. /IBRAHIM A. MICHAEL ADENIJI/Examiner, Art Unit 3763 /JOEL M ATTEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601336
CRYOGENIC PUMP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601450
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR SUPPLYING LIQUEFIED HYDROGEN
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12595961
AIR SEPARATION APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12584662
ELECTRO-CALORIC AND/OR PYROELECTRIC HEAT EXCHANGER WITH AN IMPROVED HOUSING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571566
CRYOCOOLER MAGNETIC DISPLACER SPRING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
67%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+38.8%)
3y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 115 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month