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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/0285182 to Ando (Ando) in view of JP 2000-274356 to Kita (Kita).
In reference to claim 1, Ando teaches a cryopump system (par 0010-0042; FIG. 1-4) comprising a plurality of cryopumps (10, FIG. 1) each of which includes a cryopump container (30, FIG. 1), an exhaust valve (72, FIG. 1) that exhausts an exhaust fluid from the cryopump container (par 0025), and an exhaust line (92, FIG. 1) through which the exhaust fluid is exhausted from the plurality of cryopumps (10, FIG. 1) to a treatment device (73, FIG. 1), the exhaust line including a plurality of branch lines (98, FIG. 1) and a merging line (94 and 96, FIG. 1), the plurality of branch lines (98, FIG. 1) each connected to the exhaust valve (72, FIG. 1) of a corresponding cryopump (10, FIG. 1), the merging line (94 and 96, FIG. 1) connecting the plurality of branch lines (98, FIG. 1) to the treatment device (73, FIG. 1), but does not teach an exhaust purge valve that supplies a purge gas to the exhaust valve or downstream thereof. Kita teaches a regeneration device for cryopump (FIG. 1-5) comprising an exhaust purge valve (49, FIG. 1-5) that supplies a purge gas to the exhaust valve (38, FIG. 1-5) in order to first exhaust the explosive gas so that the pressure in the container does not become higher than the atmosphere (par 0031, last sentence).
Therefore, 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 system of Ando, to include an exhaust purge valve that supplies a purge gas to the exhaust valve or downstream thereof, as taught by Kita, in order to first exhaust the explosive gas so that the pressure in the container does not become higher than the atmosphere.
In reference to claim 2, Ando and Kita teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, and Kita additionally teaches wherein each of the branch lines (37, FIG. 1-2) includes a buffer volume (gas separation container 36, FIG. 1-2) that connects the exhaust valve (38, FIG. 1-2) of the corresponding cryopump to the merging line (39, FIG. 1-2), and the exhaust purge valve (49, FIG. 1-2) of the corresponding cryopump is connected to that branch line on an exhaust valve side with respect to the buffer volume (36, FIG. 1-2).
In reference to claim 3, Ando and Kita teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, but they do not teach explicitly wherein the buffer volume is in a range of 1 liter to 30 liters.
However, it would have been obvious matter of design choice to modify Ando in view of Kita by having the buffer volume is in a range of 1 liter to 30 liters, since applicant has not disclosed that having the volume of the buffer at this specific value solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose and it appears that the system would perform equally well with the buffer volume in a range of 1 liter to 40 or 50 liters.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kita in view of JP 5-272452 to Shincron (Shincron).
In reference to claim 10, Kita teaches a cryopump system (par 0027-0038; FIG. 1-2) comprising a cryopump (31, FIG. 1-2) that includes a cryopump container (34, FIG. 1-2), an exhaust valve (38, FIG. 1-2) which exhausts an exhaust fluid from the cryopump container, and a first exhaust purge valve (49, FIG. 1-2) which supplies a purge gas to the exhaust valve (38, FIG. 1-2); an exhaust line (36-37-39-48, FIG. 1-2) through which the exhaust fluid is exhausted from the cryopump to a treatment device (35, FIG. 1-2), but does not teach an additional exhaust purge valve that is connected to the exhaust valve that supplies the purge gas to a treatment device side with respect to the first exhaust purge valve. Shincron teaches a cryopump system (FIG. 1-3) comprising an additional exhaust purge valve (53, FIG. 1) that is connected to the exhaust valve (55, FIG. 1) that supplies the purge gas to a treatment device side with respect to the first exhaust purge valve in order to dilute the hydrogen concentration, moving it out of the hydrogen explosion range and thereby reliably preventing an explosion (par 0017).
Therefore, 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 system of Kita, to include an additional exhaust purge valve that is connected to the exhaust valve that supplies the purge gas to a treatment device side with respect to the first exhaust purge valve, as taught by Shincron, in order to dilute the hydrogen concentration, moving it out of the hydrogen explosion range and thereby reliably preventing an explosion.
In reference to claim 11, Kita and Shincron teach the system as explained in the rejection of claim 10 above, and Shincron additionally teaches wherein the exhaust line includes a buffer volume (33 and 37, FIG. 1) connected between the first exhaust purge valve (55, FIG. 1) and the additional exhaust purge valve (53, FIG. 1).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is allowed.
Claims 4-8 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See attached PTO-892 for relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILIP ZEC whose telephone number is (571)270-5846. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri; 9-5.
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, JD Fletcher can be reached at 5712705054. 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.
/FILIP ZEC/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
5/2/2026
Prosecution Insights