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 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.
Claim(s) 31-37, 53-56 and 58-59 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Komatsu LTD (JPH1130467)(referred to herein as Komatsu).
Regarding claim 31, Komatsu teaches that it is known to adjust and control the temperature of a vacuum chamber (Fig. 1, item 1) which can comprises piping [0010] that can be thermally coupled to the wall surface [0002], further comprising a circulation pump [0010] and a temperature adjusting such as a heat exchanger (Fig. 1., item 3) and wherein the fluid pump is capable of pumping a heating fluid in the manner claimed.
Regarding claim 32, Komatsu further teaches wherein the heat exchanger may further comprise a cooling fluid held by a cooling means which is an integral part of the heat exchanger as shown in Fig. 1.
Regarding claims 33-34, the cooling fluid of claim 31 is optional and therefore not a requirement of claims 33-34.
Regarding claim 35, the use temperature of the device of Komatsu is in the temperature range claimed implying a capability to perform the temperature modification as claimed [0015].
Regarding claims 36, the cooling means and cooling fluid of claim 31 is optional and therefore not a requirement of claims 36.
Regarding claim 37, Komatsu further teaches sensing the temperature of the thermal fluid in the thermal fluid pathway.
Regarding claims 53-54, the teachings of Komatsu are as shown above. Komatsu fails to teach measuring the temperature of the vacuum chamber directly as claimed so as to be used in a method such as the one claimed. However, several points should be made. First, that it is not completely described how to system of Komatsu functions with regards to the concept of whether heat is constantly regulated or rather turned on and off as needed. Fig. 1 of Komatsu shows shutoff valves on both sides of the chamber relating to the fluid tubing but it is not stated in Komatsu that these valves are opened or closed based on sensed conditions. Therefore it is assumed that they likely are there for maintenance purposes or other means. Further pressure is stated as being maintained “substantially constantly” on the thermal medium possibly reasonably implying a constant operation. Further, the system of Komatsu is provided with a cooling fluid that may be provided to the tubing of the system of Komatsu within the heat exchanger so as to remove heat from the fluid in the lines as needed. Seemingly the system of Komatsu functions to maintain the chamber within a range by both heating and cooling as needed. Komatsu maintains a temperature within an upper and lower limit, wherein Komatsu uses 90-250C for example in the chamber, by maintaining a piping temperature that is sensed as stated above. Therefore reasonably at least one point is true if not both: Komatsu is capable of determining a chamber temperature directly by sensing the temperature of the tubing or Komatsu is indirectly capable of measuring and determining the chamber temperature by measuring the piping temperature. Further, the cooling system of Komatsu operates only when the heating means of Komatsu is stopped [0025]. Therefore, reasonably what is implied as taking place in Komatsu is that Komatsu uses an upper temperature and lower temperature limit (range) wherein if heating is required to keep the range, the lamp is turned on and if cooling is need to maintain the range the cooling fluid is used instead. Therefore, Komatsu reasonably implicitly functions as claimed.
Regarding claim 55-56, to maintain temperature within a range the measured temperature must necessarily be applied against the range in question, wherein logically cooling would function if the temperature were too high and heating would occur if the temperature were too low.
Regarding claim 58, the operations of Komatsu seem to be generally implied as being performed “constantly” as such would be considered to be part of a repeated closed loop or monitoring.
Regarding claim 59, the claim as written defines a capability of the system and not a processing step that is taken wherein the system of Komatsu is reasonably as capable of being used for a bake out procedure as the system of the current claims.
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) 38-40, 44-45, 47, 52 and 60 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu LTD (JPH1130467)(referred to herein as Komatsu) as applied to claims 31-37, 53-56 and 58-59 above.
Regarding claims 38 and 60, the teachings of Komatsu are as shown above. Komatsu fails to explicitly teach wherein the tubing provided is “detachable” as claimed. However, the Courts have generally long held that making parts separable “if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access” a portion of the device to be separated, it would then be obvious to make the device separable for that reason. See In reDulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). In this case, making the tubing removable would be beneficial for its replacement, replacement of other parts or for cleaning and maintenance purposes associated with the machinery of Komatsu.
Regarding claims 39 and 52, the teachings of Komatsu are as shown above. Komatsu teaches the use of a vacuum chamber but fails to teach the use of a vacuum pump explicitly. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that the use of vacuum pumps to provide the vacuum pressure of vacuum chambers is well known in the art. The examiner is not actually aware of another means of providing the vacuum of Komatsu and therefore it may be reasonably implied. However in a case wherein it were not considered to be implicit, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use vacuum pumps as known in the art to provide the vacuum source of Komatsu as a simple substitution of the vacuum means of Komatsu with a vacuum pump as is known in the art wherein the substitution of vacuum pump of the known prior art would have been predictable based upon general knowledge in the field that vacuum pumps are a well understood and commonly employed means for providing vacuum to vacuum chambers.
Regarding claim 40, the examiner reads the wall contact of the piping of Komatsu with the wall of Komatsu as being “at least partially integrated into the chamber wall”.
Regarding claims 44-45, the examiner reads the wall contact of the piping of Komatsu with the wall of Komatsu as being “at least partially attached to the outside of the chamber wall”.
Regarding claim 47, the teachings of Komatsu are as shown above. Komatsu fails to teach the material from which the pipes of his invention are made. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice to inform the applicant that copper is common heating fluid pipe material and it reads upon the currently claimed material. Copper tubing is used in home HVAC system, home water supply lines, industrial HVAC systems and automotive cooling systems as a fluid pipe material for a plurality of reasons including its ability to be bent to shape, its non-toxic nature, its pressure properties and resistance to corrosion. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use copper piping known in the art as the tubing of Komatsu as a simple substitution of one known fluid piping for another wherein the substitution of the piping of Komatsu with that of the prior art would be predictable based upon the knowledge in the prior art especially that copper tubing is widely used and versatile as a fluid piping material in a large number of fields of endeavor.
Claim(s) 41-43 and 48-51 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komatsu LTD (JPH1130467)(referred to herein as Komatsu) as applied to claims 38-40, 44-45, 47, 52 and 60 above and further in view of Herbert et al. (GB1128880).
Regarding claim 41, the teachings of Komatsu are as shown above. Komatsu fails to teach wherein a double walled structure is present for the chamber wall such that interstitial space defines a conduit structure as defined. However, Herbert teaches that a known means of providing cooling to a vacuum chamber wall through the use of fluid containing conduits is to provide them in a manner consistent with the claims as shown in Fig. 1 of Herbert wherein the structure comprises an inner chamber wall structure (11) and an outer chamber wall structure (15) that defines a conduit between the two. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the conduit structure of Herbert as the cooling means for the vacuum chamber of Komatsu as a simple substitution of one fluid based vacuum chamber cooling arrangement for another wherein the substitution of one for the other would have been predictable based upon the teachings of Herbert.
Regarding claim 42, structurally speaking a duct is merely a passage and as such the conduits of Herbert reasonably read upon these structures.
Regarding claim 43, the teachings of Komatsu in view of Herbert are as shown above. Further Herbert does teach the use of pairs of straight bores but fails to teach the use of V-shaped bores. However, the Court has long held that in the absence of a new and unexpected result arising from a newly provided shape for a prior art structure, changes in shape of a prior art structure are not capable of overcoming a prima facie case of obviousness in view of the prior art provided shape. See In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Regarding claim 48, the inside of the conduits of Herbert would reasonably read upon the elongated concave structures of the current claims as well as the concave shapes of the outer coating material.
Regarding claim 49, the molten aluminum coating method of Herbert used to cover the tubing portions of Herbert would reasonably read upon a soldering method.
Regarding claim 50, the prior art structure would seemingly be capable of providing heat to the entirety of the outside structure of the chamber wall either directly or indirectly.
Regarding claim 51, the conduits of Herbert appear to be reasonably evenly distributed across the chamber wall in multiple directions.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 57 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: it is not known in the prior art to provide a temperature control system for adjusting a temperature of a vacuum chamber, the temperature control system comprising conduits which can be thermally coupled to a chamber wall of the vacuum chamber, a fluid pump ,temperature adjusting means comprising a heating means or both a heating means and a cooling means, and tubing for fluidly connecting said conduits, fluid pump, and temperature adjusting means, respectively, wherein the fluid pump is capable of pumping a heating fluid heated by the heating means through the conduits for heating the vacuum chamber, or of pumping both a heating fluid heated by the heating means and a cooling fluid cooled by the cooling means through the conduits for both heating and cooling the vacuum chamber, respectively, comprising a vacuum system with a vacuum chamber, the vacuum chamber comprising a chamber wall enclosing a vacuum volume, a vacuum pump system connected to the vacuum chamber for evacuating the vacuum volume, and a temperature control system for adjusting a temperature of a vacuum chamber and the conduits of the temperature control system are thermally coupled to the chamber wall and using the system above to perform a method of adjusting the temperature of a vacuum chamber, comprising the steps of a) measuring the temperature of the vacuum chamber b) evaluating the temperature measured in step a) at least by comparing the temperature with an upper limit value and/or a lower limit value and c) cooling or heating, respectively, of the vacuum chamber by the temperature control system, if the temperature evaluated in step b) exceeds the upper limit value or falls short of the lower limit value, wherein in step b) the measured temperature is compared with both the upper limit value and the lower limit value, wherein the lower limit value is higher than the upper limit value as in claim 57.
The most pertinent prior art (Komatsu LTD, JPH1130467) teaches the general structure of vacuum chamber heating and cooling mechanism that read upon the claim limitations. However, Komatsu generally teaches a range within which the device should operate that would read upon essentially the opposite embodiment of claim 57, which corresponds to claim 56, wherein a temperature for operation is selected and actions are taken outside that temperature rather than a temperature range for excluding operation as in claim 57 wherein if a temperature is measured within the upper and lower limit, an action is taken to move the chamber temperature out of the measured temperature range. This is a unique ability of the invention of the current claims allowing the chamber of the current claims to avoid a specific temperature range within the operating temperature range.
Another prior art (Herbert et al.,GB1128880) teaches that it is known to provide a structurally similar arrangement of cooling conduits to the exterior of a vacuum chamber but is otherwise largely unrelated to the problems solved by the current application.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW J BOWMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5342. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat 5:00AM-11:00AM.
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, Dah-Wei Yuan can be reached at 571-272-1295. 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.
/ANDREW J BOWMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1717