DETAILED ACTION
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 with traverse of Species B3 in the reply filed on 3/30/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the applicant alleges that the search and examination of all claims can be made without serious burden. This is not found persuasive because the election of species requirement has shown serious burden to pursue the divergent search queries toward the alternative control features of the species. The traversal is further an allegation that the species “relate to the same underlying technical feature”. This is not found persuasive because there is no requirement in the law that the species must share no features. Further the requirement does not have to show that the species are “unrelated” as inferred by the allegation. Searching for the alternative features would clearly provide examination for several mutually exclusive control inventions and this is an undue burden on the examiner. The traversal that the species of B1, B2, B3 have differences that are only “temporal” is unpersuasive because no feature of the invention may be ignored in searching for the claimed invention and such differences would lead to prior art applicable to one invention but not likely applicable to another. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claim(s) 3, 4, 8, 9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 6-7, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “perform, responsive to the opening the purge valve, iterative calculations of a changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values” introduces new matter since there is no support that the iterative calculations are “responsive” to the opening the purge valve. The scope of the recitation includes that the iterative calculations are caused by the opening of the purge valve or includes scope that the purge valve sends a signal to the controller to initiate the recited calculations and there is no support for the scope of the recitation. Rather, the disclosure explicitly states that the controller (20) itself commands the purge valve (26) to open (pg. pub. para. 30, 51) and that the controller (20) “may determine whether or not the purge valve 26 is open” (pg. pub. para. 76). A determination of whether or not the purge valve is open is not a responding as recited to the opening event as there is no cause / effect relationship.
The recitation, “perform, responsive to the performing of the iterative calculations of the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values, iterative comparisons of the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values with a changed amount threshold” contains new matter as there is nothing supporting that the controller “responds” to the performing of the iterative calculations. In addition, the recitation includes further unsupported scope: that the controller acts upon receipt of some information that the calculations were performed. The disclosure only supports that the controller performs the comparisons after the performance of the calculations (see pg. pub. para. 77-78) and there does not appear to be support for responsiveness as recited.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “responsive to the opening the purge valve, iteratively calculating, with the controller, a changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values” introduces new matter since there is no support that the iterative calculations are “responsive” to the opening the purge valve. The scope of the recitation includes that the iterative calculations are caused by the opening of the purge valve or includes scope that the purge valve sends a signal to the controller to initiate the recited calculations and there is no support for the scope of the recitation. Rather, the disclosure explicitly states that the controller (20) itself commands the purge valve (26) to open (pg. pub. para. 30, 51) and that the controller (20) “may determine whether or not the purge valve 26 is open” (pg. pub. para. 76). A determination of whether or not the purge valve is open is not a responding as recited to the opening event as there is no cause / effect relationship.
The recitation, “responsive to the iteratively calculating, iteratively comparing, with the controller, the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values with a changed amount threshold” contains new matter as there is nothing supporting that the controller “responds” to the performing of the iterative calculations. In addition, the recitation includes further unsupported scope: that the controller acts upon receipt of some information that the calculations were performed. The disclosure only supports that the controller performs the comparisons after the performance of the calculations (see pg. pub. para. 77-78) and there does not appear to be support for responsiveness as recited.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “responsive to the opening the purge valve, iteratively calculating, with the controller, a changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values” introduces new matter since there is no support that the iterative calculations are “responsive” to the opening the purge valve. The scope of the recitation includes that the iterative calculations are caused by the opening of the purge valve or includes scope that the purge valve sends a signal to the controller to initiate the recited calculations and there is no support for the scope of the recitation. Rather, the disclosure explicitly states that the controller (20) itself commands the purge valve (26) to open (pg. pub. para. 30, 51) and that the controller (20) “may determine whether or not the purge valve 26 is open” (pg. pub. para. 76). A determination of whether or not the purge valve is open is not a responding as recited to the opening event as there is no cause / effect relationship.
The recitation, “responsive to the iteratively calculating, iteratively comparing, with the controller, the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values with a changed amount threshold” contains new matter as there is nothing supporting that the controller “responds” to the performing of the iterative calculations. In addition, the recitation includes further unsupported scope: that the controller acts upon receipt of some information that the calculations were performed. The disclosure only supports that the controller performs the comparisons after the performance of the calculations (see pg. pub. para. 77-78) and there does not appear to be support for responsiveness as recited.
In regard to claims 2, 7, 12, the recitation, “wherein the iterative calculations start immediately after opening of the purge valve” is not supported in the disclosure. There is no description of “immediately” relative to the calculations and nothing indicating that there may not be at least some delay after the opening of the purge valve.
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(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 10-17 is/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 regard to claim 1, the recitation, “perform, responsive to the opening the purge valve, iterative calculations of a changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values” is indefinite since it is unclear what is included and excluded by the recited responsiveness to the opening the purge valve. It is unclear if the recitation includes that the iterative calculations are caused by the opening of the purge valve or includes that the purge valve sends a signal to the controller to initiate the recited calculations. For examination it is presumed that the controller (20) merely commands the purge valve (26) to open (pg. pub. para. 30, 51) and that if the purge valve 26 is open (pg. pub. para. 76) the controller performs the iterative calculations.
The recitation, “perform, responsive to the performing of the iterative calculations of the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values, iterative comparisons of the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values with a changed amount threshold” is indefinite since it is not clear what the recited responsiveness to the iterative calculations requires. It is unclear if the recitation includes that the iterative comparisons are caused by the iterative calculations or includes some extra operation other than merely performing the iterative comparisons after performing the iterative calculations. For examination it is presumed that the controller (20) merely performs the iterative calculations and then performs the iterative comparisons.
In regard to claim 6, the recitation, “responsive to the opening the purge valve, iteratively calculating, with the controller, a changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values” is indefinite since it is unclear what is included and excluded by the recited responsiveness to the opening the purge valve. It is unclear if the recitation includes that the iterative calculations are caused by the opening of the purge valve or includes that the purge valve sends a signal to the controller to initiate the recited calculations. For examination it is presumed that the controller (20) merely commands the purge valve (26) to open (pg. pub. para. 30, 51) and that if the purge valve 26 is open (pg. pub. para. 76) the controller performs the iterative calculations.
The recitation, “responsive to the iteratively calculating, iteratively comparing, with the controller, the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values with a changed amount threshold” is indefinite since it is not clear what the recited responsiveness to the iterative calculating requires. It is unclear if the recitation includes that the iterative comparing is caused by the iterative calculating or includes some extra operation other than merely performing the iterative comparing after performing the iterative calculating. For examination it is presumed that the controller (20) merely performs the iterative calculating and then performs the iterative comparing.
In regard to claim 11, the recitation, “perform, responsive to the opening the purge valve, iterative calculations of a changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values” is indefinite since it is unclear what is included and excluded by the recited responsiveness to the opening the purge valve. It is unclear if the recitation includes that the iterative calculations are caused by the opening of the purge valve or includes that the purge valve sends a signal to the controller to initiate the recited calculations. For examination it is presumed that the controller (20) merely commands the purge valve (26) to open (pg. pub. para. 30, 51) and that if the purge valve 26 is open (pg. pub. para. 76) the controller performs the iterative calculations.
The recitation, “responsive to the iteratively calculating, iteratively comparing, with the controller, the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values with a changed amount threshold” is indefinite since it is not clear what the recited responsiveness to the iterative calculating requires. It is unclear if the recitation includes that the iterative comparisons are caused by the iterative calculations or includes some extra operation other than merely performing the iterative comparisons after performing the iterative calculations. For examination it is presumed that the controller (20) merely performs the iterative calculations and then performs the iterative comparisons.
In regard to claims 2, 7, 12, the recitation, “wherein the iterative calculations start immediately after opening of the purge valve” is indefinite since the disclosure does not make any description of a timeliness of the iterative calculations and it is unclear if the recitation excludes any time period between when the purge valve is opened and when the iterative calculations start. Further, it is unclear how the disclosed controller could perform the iterative calculations without at least some momentary time between the opening of the purge valve and the initiation of the iterative calculations. Further it is unclear if the recitation excludes any delays or excludes other operations being performed between the two actions.
Claim Interpretation
All of the claims have been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, and it is considered that none of the claim recitations should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-7, 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa (US 2012/0180503) in view of Yatsu (US 2016/0245270).
In regard to claim(s) 1, 6, 11, Oikawa teaches a method and a cryopump (para. 2, cryopump) comprising:
a cryopump container (30, 38);
a pressure sensor (54, para. 28) that is configured to measure a measured pressure in the cryopump container (30, 38) over time (para. 27, 28 throughout regeneration process);
a vent valve (70) that is provided on the cryopump container (30, 38), is electrically operable to open and close (para. 29), and is capable of being mechanically opened by a differential pressure between inside and outside the cryopump container (30, 38) (para. 33, 61, Fig. 3);
a purge valve (74) that is provided on the cryopump container (30, 38); and
a controller (20) (para. 28, 57) is configured to
open the purge valve (74) to supply a purge gas (para. 35, “nitrogen gas” “purge gas”) to the cryopump container,
perform control of the vent valve (70) based on the measured pressure including: comparing a measured pressure value (obtained with 54, para. 28) with a threshold (reference pressure, para. 56), and controlling the vent valve (70) to open when the measured pressure value is greater than the threshold (para. 58).
Oikawa does not explicitly teach that the controller (20) is configured to
first open the purge valve and then perform iterative calculations of a changed amount of at least two measured pressure values measured at time points different from each other,
then perform iterative comparisons of the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values with a changed amount threshold, the iterative comparisons occurring in conjunction with the iterative calculations, and
then perform control of the vent valve to open when the iterative comparisons confirm that the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values is less than the change amount threshold.
However, Yatsu teaches a controller (100) that considers how an internal pressure measured by pressure sensor (94) changes over time (para. 66 see start and end of purge may be performed based on pressure and pressure drop rate of the housing 38) during the purging of regeneration (para. 66-68) and operates valves (para. 55, vent valve, roughing valve, purge valve) ; and Yatsu teaches that the controller (100) is configured to
first open the purge valve (74; para. 59),
then perform iterative calculations (para. 66-69, see that the control unit continues the discharging processing until discharging completion conditions are satisfied and therefore the monitoring requires calculating over and over) of a changed amount of at least two measured pressure values (para. 66-69; see that a pressure drop rate requires at least two measured pressures and calculating a changed amount),
and further suggests that pressure rates may be compared to thresholds (para. 68) as part of determining an ending of regeneration operations and further suggests that a vent valve (70) should be opened at an end of the purge operation (para. 66, 38, 42, 55, 63) to vent the purge gas from the cryopump container.
These teachings are suggestive of considering the rate of change of pressure change over time during purging as well as considering the measured pressure value during regeneration operations (including purging) so as to increase the robustness of determining the suitability of performing valve operations to cycle to the various regeneration operations (including purging cycles).
Therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the controller of Oidawa in view of the teachings of Yatsu to first open the purge valve and then perform iterative calculations of a changed amount of at least two measured pressure values measured at time points different from each other, then perform iterative comparisons of the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values with a changed amount threshold, the iterative comparisons occurring in conjunction with the iterative calculations, and then perform control of the vent valve to open when the iterative comparisons confirm that the changed amount of the at least two measured pressure values is less than the change amount threshold for the purpose of initiating the purge operation, monitoring and determining the pressure changes over time, and automatically ending the addition of purge gas when the measured pressure change has reached a steady state condition, thereby allowing efficient operation of the purge gas and for the purpose of avoiding false positives and transient situations that are not indicative of reaching the desired pressure for vent valve operation and thereby prevent false positives from permitting intake of atmospheric air. Further, such control operation ensures that the initiation of the remedial and protective action of controlling the opening the vent valve prevents other errors from inhibiting the end of the purge operation.
Note that the controller, as modified, meets the computer readable medium claimed in claim 11.
In regard to claims 2, 7, 12, Oikawa, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, but does not explicitly mandate that the iterative calculations start immediately after the opening of the purge valve. However, it is rehearsed that during the purging operation pressure changes are expected and therefore it would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to monitor the pressure changes upon the opening of the purge valve so as to provide monitoring to the entire purging period and to avoid time periods without automatic monitoring and control.
In regard to claims 5, 10, it is rehearsed that Oikawa, as modified, teaches most of the claim limitations, including that the controller is configured to perform second comparisons of at least one of the measured pressure values (para. 56 “measured pressure”) with a setting pressure (para. 55, 58 “reference pressure”), controlling the vent valve (70) open when the internal pressure is greater than a setting pressure (para. 55, 58), but Oikawa does not appear to explicitly teach that the controller (20) determines the setting pressure based on a pressure value measured by the pressure sensor (54) before and/or after the controlled opening of the vent valve (70).
However, as Oikawa teaches that the vent valve (70) is exposed to atmospheric pressure when opened, and as it is well known that atmospheric pressure can vary per location, therefore it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of Oikawa to be programmed to determine the setting pressure based on a pressure value measured by the pressure sensor (54) after the controlled opening of the vent valve (70) to acquire a value for the setting pressure that was locally appropriate and thereby reduces operational inefficiencies from having to input an atmospheric pressure by the user or having to select a generic value that may not be as suitable as the local pressure determined empirically. Further, performing the calculation before the opening of the vent valve would provide the obvious benefit of informing the controller that the pressure difference between the interior and exterior has been fully minimized.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN F PETTITT whose telephone number is (571)272-0771. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 9-5p. 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): http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. The examiner’s supervisor, Frantz Jules can be reached on 571-272-6681. 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.
/JOHN F PETTITT, III/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763