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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the drawings reference a “cryocooler” but the disclosure appears to only describe a “cooler” and the drawings with the specification present the cooler and cryocooler as separate elements but they are really the same structure and the presentation creates un-necessary ambiguity. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Examiner Request
The applicant is requested to provide line numbers to each claim in all future claim submissions to aide in examination and communication with the applicant about claim recitations. The applicant is thanked for aiding examination.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regard to claim 1, the recitation, “gradually increase” is indefinite for being relative and patently indistinct as there is no way to discern what rate is sufficiently slow to qualify as gradual.
In regard to claim 2, the recitation, “the monitoring unit monitors whether a temperature of the first stage part is maintained at a predetermined first reference temperature while a first heater configured to heat the first stage part is in an OFF state” is indefinite as the recitation is a step and the system claim is not defined by steps.
The recitation, “a temperature” is indefinite since the independent claim already introduces a temperature of the first stage part and it is unclear if the present recitation is a different temperature or the same temperature.
In regard to claim 3, the recitation, “wherein the controller gradually increases the motor rotational speed of the cooler of the cryopump whenever the temperature of the first stage part is higher than the predetermined first reference temperature while the first heater is in the OFF state.” is indefinite as the recitation is a step and the system claim is not defined by steps.
The recitation, “gradually increases” is indefinite for being relative and patently indistinct as there is no way to discern what rate is sufficiently slow to qualify as gradual.
In regard to claim 4, the recitation, “the controller increases the motor rotational speed of the cooler to between 80 rpm and 90 rpm.” is indefinite as the recitation is a step and the system claim is not defined by steps.
In regard to claim 5, the recitation, “wherein the controller increases the motor rotational speed of the cooler by from 5 rpm to 10 rpm whenever the temperature of the second stage part reaches the predetermined second referenced temperature” is indefinite as the recitation is a step and the system claim is not defined by steps.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “temperature measurement unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure uses the term but never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to provide for the term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim limitation “monitoring unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure uses the term but never defines what structure is necessary and sufficient to provide for the term. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fukuda (US 2013/0219924). See the indefiniteness rejections and note that the prior art teaches the claimed features as far as can be interpreted. Further note the interpretation of the claim language as outlined in the rejection below.
In regard to claim 1, Fukuda teaches a cryopump system (Fig. 1, 4, 5; para. 37), comprising:
a temperature measurement unit (90, 92, and part of 100; para. 59, 60, 65) configured to measure temperatures of a first stage part (22) and a second stage part (24) of a cryopump (10), respectively;
a monitoring unit (part of 100 comparing the measured temperatures to reference temperatures) configured to monitor whether the temperature of the second stage part (24) reaches a predetermined second reference temperature (para. 71 “target temperature”); and
a controller (other part of 100) configured to gradually increase (fully capable of increasing motor speed at a rate slower than some other rate; para. 68) a motor rotational speed of a cooler (16; para. 41) of the cryopump (10) whenever the temperature of the second stage part (24) reaches the predetermined second reference temperature (target temperature; para. 71).
In regard to claim 2, Fukuda teaches that the monitoring unit (part of 100 comparing the measured temperatures to reference temperatures) monitors whether the temperature of the first stage part (22) is maintained at a predetermined first reference temperature (target temperature, para. 68) while a first heater (para. 61) configured to heat the first stage part (22) is in an OFF state (see heater is off during cryopumping operation; para. 66-67).
In regard to claim 3, Fukuda teaches that the controller (other part of 100) gradually increases (increases at a rate slower than some other rate; para. 68) the motor rotational speed of the cooler (16) of the cryopump (10) whenever the temperature of the first stage part (22) is higher than the predetermined first reference temperature (target temperature) while the first heater is in the OFF state (see heater para. 61 is off during cryopumping operation - para. 66-67).
In regard to claim 4, Fukuda teaches that the controller (other part of 100) is configured to operate an initial motor rotational speed of the cooler (16) is in the range of from 40 rpm to 50 rpm (fully capable thereof), and the controller (other part of 100) is configured to increase the motor rotational speed of the cooler (16) to between 80 rpm and 90 rpm (fully capable of such functional operation).
In regard to claim 5, Fukuda teaches that the controller (100) is configured to increase the motor rotational speed of the cooler (16) by from 5 rpm to 10 rpm whenever the temperature of the second stage part (24) reaches the predetermined second reference temperature (target temperature; fully capable such an increase; para. 71).
In regard to claim 6, Fukuda teaches that the predetermined second reference temperature (target temperature of 24) is from 17K to 20K (para. 59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the 892 form and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 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
PNG
media_image1.png
1352
1920
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights