6/5/26Notice 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 Objections
Claims 3 and 4 objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 3 and 4 recite “a small contact resistance” It shall be “the small contact resistance”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2006/0110271 to Klabunde in view of the applicant provided prior art US Patent Publication 2013/0230384 to Okudera.
In Reference to Claims 1 and 2
Klabunde discloses a vacuum pump, comprising: a housing (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) in which an inlet port (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) is formed; a protective net (Fig. 1, 4) provided at the inlet port; a gas transfer mechanism (Fig. 1, annotated by the examiner) provided with a rotating body (Fig. 1, 3) in the housing;
Klabunde does not teach a entanglement prevention mechanism.
Okudera teaches a entanglement prevention mechanism (Fig. 2, 12c) that prevents the protective net from being caught in the rotating body when the protective net is deformed, wherein the entanglement prevention mechanism is a non-mesh portion (As showed in Fig. 2, 12c is a non-mesh portion) that is formed in a part of the protective net that comes into contact with a part of the rotating body, by leaving a base material.
Okudera teaches the part of the rotating body that comes into contact with the protective net has a shape having a small contact resistance. (As showed in Fig. 2, the contact area 12c has much smaller covering area than the net portion 12b)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Okudera into the design of Klabunde. Doing so, would result in the splinter shield design of Okudera being used to replace the screen (item 4) of Klabunde. Both inventions of Klaunde and Okudera are in the same field of endeavor, Okudera teaches the splinter shield with a required strength to limit the shield from bending toward the inside of the pump.
The Office considers that the contact between the net and rotor is a operational result of recited structure. It is determined by the strength of the reinforcement 12c and the vacuum pressure of the operation. According to MPEP: "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process."
PNG
media_image1.png
428
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Okudera and Klabunde as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent 7,572,096 to Nonaka.
In Reference to Claims 3-5
The combination of Okudera and Klabunde as applied to Claim 2 teaches the structure as recited.
The combination of Okudera and Klabunde as applied to Claim 2 does not teach the friction of the components.
Nonaka teaches the rotor and blade assembly (Fig. 1, 13, 12) is coated by aluminum alloy (Fig. 1, 43)
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teachings from Nonaka into the combination of Okudera and Klabunde as applied to Claim 2. Doing so, would result in the rotor and blade assembly of Okudera being coated by nickel alloy layer. Both inventions of Okudera and Nonaka are in the same field of endeavor, Nonaka teaches method of increasing the resistance of the component.
Once the component of the rotor and shaft are coated with nickel and aluminum alloy, the friction coefficient would also be lowered.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEMING WAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thur: 8 am to 6 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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 57122726460. 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.
DEMING . WAN
Examiner
Art Unit 3762
/DEMING WAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762 6/5/26
Prosecution Insights