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 § 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 1-7 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 "evacuating gases captured in the cryopump vessel until the cryopump vessel has a predetermined pressure" in line 9-10, wherein the term "predetermined pressure" renders the indefinite because the claim, read in light of the specification, does not inform a POSITA with reasonable certainty what value or range constitutes the claimed "predetermined pressure." The specification at [¶ 0014] discloses a range of 5 Torr–15.2 Torr, but that specific range appears only in dependent claim 7, leaving the scope of claim 1 unbounded. The word "predetermined" indicates only that a threshold is set in advance by an operator and does not itself define or delimit the claimed subject matter. Applicant is invited to amend claim 1 to recite a specific pressure value or range, or to incorporate the limitation of claim 7.
Claim 4 recites "turning off the first heater when the temperature of the first stage part reaches a predetermined first temperature." The "predetermined first temperature" is not defined in the claim or claim 1 from which it depends. While the specification at ¶ [0038] discloses a range of 120K–160K for the first stage, this appears only in dependent claim 3 and the detailed description. As written, the "predetermined first temperature" of claim 4 is indefinite for the same reasons as claim 1.
Claims 2, 3 and 5-7 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Oikawa (US 2015/0267693 A1) in view of Takahashi (US 2020/0132064 A1).
In regard to claim 1, Oikawa teaches a method for regenerating a cryopump that includes:
a cooler (refrigerator 16) equipped with a first stage part (20) and a second stage part (21) cooled to a lower temperature than the first stage (¶ 0025; Fig. 1; Oikawa discloses the second stage 21 is cooled to a lower temperature than first stage 20 (first stage 20 approximately 65K–120K; second stage 21 approximately 10K–20K)),
a cryopanel with a first panel (19) including a heat-shield body (radiation shield 30) and a baffle (inlet cryopanel 32) cooled by first stage part (20); a second panel (18) cooled by the second stage part (21) (¶ 0027-0031; Fig. 1; Oikawa discloses high-temperature cryopanel 19 (first panel) comprising radiation shield 30 (heat-shield body) and inlet cryopanel 32 (baffle), both thermally coupled to and cooled by first stage 20),
a cryopump vessel (housing 38) configured to surround the cryopanel (cryopanels 18 and 19) (¶ 0033; Fig. 1), the method comprising:
a temperature increasing process of increasing temperatures of the first stage part (20) and the second stage part (21) by supplying a purge gas into the cryopump vessel (38) during an operation of the cooler (16) (Oikawa ¶ 0053-0054, 0060, 0095; Fig. 2, step S11; Fig. 4, period a; Oikawa discloses that in temperature-raising step S11, control unit 100 opens purge valve 74 to supply nitrogen purge gas to housing 38 while refrigerator 16 simultaneously operates as a heat source (reversal heating), increasing the temperatures of first stage 20 and second stage 21);
a cool-down process of lowering the temperatures of the first stage part and the second stage part to their operating temperatures, respectively
a roughing process of evacuating gases captured in the cryopump vessel (38) until the cryopump vessel has a predetermined pressure (¶ 0079-0082; Fig. 2, step S13; Fig. 4, period c; Oikawa discloses discharging process S13 in which rough valve 72 and roughing pump 73 evacuate gases from housing 38 to a predetermined roughing pressure within the sub-base pressure zone of 50 Pa–500 Pa (preferred 100 Pa–200 Pa));
a cool-down process of lowering the temperatures of the first stage part and the second stage part to their operating temperatures, respectively (¶ 0087; Fig. 2, step S14; Fig. 4, period d; Oikawa discloses cool-down process S14 in which the cooling operation of refrigerator 16 is restarted to recool cryopanels 18 and 19 to cryogenic operating temperatures);
Oikawa's primary embodiment uses reversal heating of refrigerator (16) as the heat source for both stages simultaneously (Oikawa ¶ 0054). While Oikawa alternatively mentions that a heater provided in the refrigerator (16) may be used as the heat source, Oikawa describes this as a single heater associated with the refrigerator generally (Oikawa ¶ 0054), but does not explicitly teach a first heater provided in the first stage part and a second heater provided in the second stage part as separate elements.
Takahashi discloses first heater (94) mounted to first cooling stage (20) to independently heat first cooling stage (20) and first-stage cryopanel (18), and second heater (96) mounted to second cooling stage (21) to independently heat second cooling stage (21) and second-stage cryopanel (19), with both heaters controlled by cryocooler controller (100) (Takahashi ¶ 0066; Fig. 1, elements 94, 96). Takahashi's control device (100) is expressly configured to control the cryopump for a regeneration operation and a cool-down operation in addition to an evacuation operation, confirming that the dual per-stage heater configuration supports regeneration (Takahashi ¶ 0049).
In the combination, first heater 94 and second heater 96 serve as the dedicated per-stage heat sources applied during Oikawa's temperature increasing process.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Takahashi's dedicated dual per-stage heater architecture into Oikawa's regeneration method to provide a predictable result of independent, controlled per-stage heating during regeneration.
In regard to claim 4, the modified Oikawa in view of Takahashi teaches the method for regenerating a cryopump of claim 1, wherein roughing the process includes:
terminates the temperature-raising process when the temperature of the first stage part reaches a predetermined first temperature (Oikawa ¶ 0075–0076, 0080; Fig. 4, transition from period b to period c: Oikawa discloses that control unit 100 monitors cryopanel temperature via first temperature sensor 90 and terminates the temperature-raising process when the first stage reaches a predetermined target temperature zone).
Oikawa does not explicitly teach turning off a dedicated first-stage heater at that condition. Takahashi teaches that cryocooler controller 100 controls the output of first heater 94 based on the temperature measured by first temperature sensor 90 and a preset first-stage target temperature, reducing heater output to zero when the target is reached (¶ 0084; Fig. 1, elements 90, 94, 100). This temperature-based first heater termination logic, applied within Oikawa's regeneration sequence, directly corresponds to turning off the first heater when the first stage part reaches the predetermined first temperature.
Evacuating gases captured in the cryopump vessel when the first heater is turned off (Oikawa ¶ 0075, 0079; Fig. 2, S13: Oikawa discloses that upon satisfying the temperature-raising completion condition, control unit 100 immediately initiates discharging process S13 comprising rough evacuation via rough valve 72 and roughing pump 73).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Takahashi's temperature-feedback heater cutoff logic to Oikawa's regeneration sequence for the reasons set forth under claim 1. Oikawa already employs a temperature-based termination criterion via first temperature sensor 90 (Oikawa ¶ 0075-0076); applying Takahashi's known control of first heater 94 — reducing heater output to zero upon reaching a preset target temperature (Takahashi ¶ 0084) — to satisfy that existing condition involves using a known technique to implement a known function on identical hardware, with fully predictable results.
In regard to claim 5, the modified Oikawa teaches the method for regenerating a cryopump of claim 1, wherein the roughing process includes:
evacuating water captured by the first stage part (20) (¶ 0049; ¶ 0079, 0100; Fig. 4, period c: Oikawa discloses that high-temperature cryopanel 19 (first stage, comprising radiation shield 30 and inlet cryopanel 32) captures water by condensation, and that discharging process S13 evacuates this water from housing 38), and
evacuating at least one of hydrogen, helium, neon, argon, nitrogen, and oxygen captured by the second stage part (21) (Oikawa ¶ 0027, 0049, 0071-0072; Fig. 1, element 27: Oikawa discloses that low-temperature cryopanel 18 (second stage) captures hydrogen and other lower-vapor-pressure gases by adsorption via adsorbent 27 (activated carbon), and that these gases are discharged during the temperature raising rough and purge via rough valve 72).
In regard to claim 6, the modified Oikawa teaches the method for regenerating a cryopump of claim 1, wherein the roughing process includes:
turning off the second heater when the cryopump vessel has the predetermined pressure (Oikawa ¶ 0085-0086; Fig. 4, transition from period c to period d: Oikawa discloses that control unit 100 monitors pressure via pressure sensor 94 and terminates the discharging process when pressure falls below the predetermined threshold, at which point all active heating ceases).
Oikawa does not explicitly teach turning off a discrete second-stage heater at that condition.
Takahashi teaches condition-based deactivation of second heater (96): controller (100) reduces the output of second heater 96 as the target state is approached and finally turns off second heater 96 when the target state is achieved (Takahashi ¶ 0107; Fig. 1, elements 96, 100).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Takahashi's condition-based second heater deactivation to Oikawa's pressure-monitored discharging process for the reasons set forth under claim 1. Oikawa already monitors internal pressure via pressure sensor 94 and terminates the discharging process at a predetermined threshold (Oikawa ¶ 0085-0086); applying Takahashi's known second heater (96) deactivation logic (Takahashi ¶ 0107) to that existing pressure-based termination condition involves combining a known heater control technique with a known process termination criterion on identical hardware, yielding the predictable result of ceasing per-stage heating once evacuation is complete. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori (US 6,116,032).
In regard to claim 2, the modified Oikawa teaches the method for regenerating a cryopump of claim 1, wherein the temperature increasing process includes:
increasing the temperature of the first and second stage parts (Oikawa ¶ 0053-0060; Fig. 4, periods a–b);
Oikawa heats both stages during temperature raising process S10 but does not explicitly state that second stage 21 is driven above first stage 20.
Takahashi provides independent second-stage temperature control via second heater 96 but in the context of pumping operation, not regeneration (Takahashi ¶ [0106]).
Mori teaches that during partial regeneration, second stage cryoarray (120) is heated to 100K–160K (preferred 120K–140K) while refrigerator (110) actively maintains first stage cryoarray (118) at its operating temperature of 50K–100K to retain condensed water vapor, such that the second stage is necessarily at a higher temperature than the first stage throughout the partial regeneration heating process (Mori col. 2, ll. 35–47; col. 7, ll. 5–15; Fig. 3, step 308).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to drive second stage 21 above first stage 20 during the temperature increasing process, in view of the teachings of Mori, wherein Mori teaches that liberating lower-boiling-point gases adsorbed on the second stage while retaining water condensate on the cooler first stage requires exactly this differential heating relationship, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to apply Takahashi's independently controllable second heater (96), as modified above, to implement the differential heating that Mori expressly teaches, yielding the predictable result of gas-specific staged desorption.
In regard to claim 3, the modified Oikawa teaches the method for regenerating a cryopump of claim 2, wherein the temperature increasing process includes:
first stage part increased to between 120K and 160K by the first heater: Oikawa's first stage 20 operates at 65K–120K and is heated during temperature raising process S10 toward a first temperature zone bounded below at 273K (Oikawa ¶ 0025, 0058). As first stage 20 is heated from its operating range toward 273K, it necessarily traverses 120K–160K. Selecting a first-stage target within that range for an abbreviated heating step, rather than proceeding to room temperature, constitutes routine optimization consistent with the quick regeneration objective at (¶ 0035-0036 of the instant specification.
second stage part increased to between 130K and 170K by the second heater: Mori explicitly discloses heating second stage cryoarray 120 to a partial regeneration temperature range of 100K–160K, preferably 120K–140K, most preferably about 125K, via second stage heater 172 (Mori col. 2, ll. 35–47; col. 7, ll. 5–15; claims 2–3). The claimed second-stage range of 130K–170K directly overlaps Mori's preferred 120K–140K range. The upper bound of 170K is a routine extension of Mori's established range to ensure complete desorption at higher adsorbent loadings, requiring no inventive step.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the temperature values, for the reasons set forth under claim 2 as taught by Mori, wherein the second-stage range falls squarely within Mori's known and disclosed partial regeneration temperatures; and the first-stage range is simply a matter of physical necessity during Oikawa's heating sequence. Selecting specific targets within these established ranges involves routine optimization of known result-effective variables, with fully predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oikawa and Takahashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kimura (US 2014/0260338 A1).
In regard to claim 7, the modified Oikawa teaches the method for regenerating a cryopump of claim 1, wherein Oikawa discloses a roughing termination pressure in the sub-base pressure zone of 50 Pa–500 Pa (preferred 100 Pa–200 Pa, approximately 0.38–3.75 Torr) for discharging process S13 (Oikawa ¶ 0082), but does not explicitly teach a roughing termination pressure within 5–15.2 Torr.
Kimura teaches that roughing termination pressure is a result-effective variable routinely optimized in cryopump regeneration. Kimura discloses, on the identical Sumitomo hardware platform, a two-stage discharging process with a first roughing termination pressure of 50 Pa–500 Pa (preferred 100 Pa–200 Pa) and a second roughing termination pressure of approximately 10 Pa, treating both as adjustable optimization parameters balancing evacuation completeness against cycle time (Kimura ¶ 0058–0069, 0082–0083). Fig. 3 of Kimura further teaches that roughing pressure during the temperature raising process may be higher than during the discharging process (Kimura ¶ 0058), confirming that higher roughing termination pressures are within the expected optimization range. A POSITA would have arrived at a roughing termination pressure within 5–15.2 Torr through routine optimization of this recognized result-effective variable. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a roughing termination pressure within 5–15.2 Torr, in view of the teachings of Kimura, wherein Kimura expressly identifies roughing termination pressure as a result-effective variable to be optimized (Kimura ¶ 0058, 0082-0083), and teaches that higher roughing pressures during the temperature raising process are within the expected optimization range (Kimura ¶ 0058). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that selecting a specific roughing termination pressure within the claimed range of 5–15.2 Torr represents routine optimization of a result-effective variable that Kimura expressly identifies as such, applied on identical hardware to achieve fully predictable evacuation results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEBESHET MENGESHA whose telephone number is (571)270-1793. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7-4, alternate Fridays, EST. 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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 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 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.
/W.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3763
/FRANTZ F JULES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights