DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the motor" in S2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the solenoid valve" in S2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the current vacuum value Di" in S3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the start time t1" in S3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the predicted vacuum time, tx" in S4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites that J0, J1, and J2 are constant parameters, provides initial values for J0, J1, and J2, and then modifies J0, J1, and J2 in step S5. The metes and bounds of J0, J1, and J2 are unclear. Are J0, J1, and J2 are constant (i.e., remaining the same over a period of time) or are J0, J1, and J2 provided as an initial value and then modifiable?
Claim 1 recites that A is a constant and provides an equation for A that includes J0. The metes and bounds of A are unclear. As described above, J0 is modifiable is step S5 so is A constant or is A modifiable as J0 is modified?
Claim 1 recites the time parameter model in S6 and states that t2 is calculated. The metes and bounds of the time parameter model and t2 being calculated are unclear. Is the time parameter model solving for F(x) or t2? Or is t2 being calculated and then F(x) is solved for the time parameter model?
Claim 1 recites the term “the next moment”. The metes and bounds of the next moment are unclear. Does the next moment mean the next time t or the next step or something else? Examiner notes that the next time is tx+1 and the next step is already described in claim 1 (“then proceeding to the next step”).
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the motor temperature T1" in S3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the set protection temperature T0" in S3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the term “the next moment”. The metes and bounds of the next moment are unclear. Does the next moment mean the next time t or the next step or something else? Examiner notes that the next time is tx+1 and the next step is already described in claim 1 (“then proceeding to the next step”).
Claim 7 recites the term “the next moment”. The metes and bounds of the next moment are unclear. Does the next moment mean the next time t or the next step or something else? Examiner notes that the next time is tx+1 and the next step is already described in claim 1 (“then proceeding to the next step”).
Claims 2-3, 5, and 8-10 depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 1 and are rejected based on the dependency thereto.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent No. 12,085,085 describes a vacuum pump control system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0010030 describes a vacuum pump monitoring system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0109185 describes a vacuum pump monitoring system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER E EVERETT whose telephone number is (571)272-2851. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am to 5:00 pm (Pacific).
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/Christopher E. Everett/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights