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 .
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) 1-10 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, “an intake port plate that is thermally coupled to the first cooling stage and extends along a plane perpendicular to the axial direction in the cryopump intake port, and in which a gas inlet is formed between the intake port plate and the radiation shield;” is indefinite since it is unclear what “in which” refers to. The recitation appears to reference the recited intake port plate. But the disclosed gas inlet (46) formed between the intake port plate (32) and the radiation shield (30) is not in the intake port plate and the phrase “in which” is misleading and inappropriate.
The recitation, “and in which a frost accommodation space is formed between the cryopanel unit and the intake port plate” is indefinite since it is unclear what “in which” refers to and therefore the recitation is vague and speculative.
The recitation, “and in which a gas flow path connecting the gas inlet to the frost accommodation space is formed between the skirt and the radiation shield” is indefinite since it is unclear what “in which” refers to. The recitation implies reference to the skirt but the skirt does not have a gas flow path “in” it and therefore the recitation is confusing and unclear.
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 “cryopanel unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description is unclear as to the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Pg. pub. para. 20 states that the cryopanel unit is a cryopanel of a second stage, then pg. pub. para. 38 states that the cryopanel unit has a plurality of cryopanels. Therefore, the claim is unclear as to the necessary and sufficient structure to provide the recited cryopanel unit and the term 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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Oikawa (US 2016/0290328) cited by the applicant. 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, Oikawa teaches a cryopump (see whole disclosure, 10) comprising:
a cryopump container (18) that defines a cryopump intake port (12, para. 40);
a cryocooler (16; para. 34) that is installed in the cryopump container (18) and includes a first cooling stage (first stage 22) and a second cooling stage (second stage 24) that is cooled to a lower temperature (para. 34) than the first cooling stage (22);
a radiation shield (30) that is thermally coupled (para. 53) to the first cooling stage (22) and extends in an axial direction (para. 31) from the cryopump intake port (12) into the cryopump container (18);
an intake port plate (at least portion of 32) that is thermally coupled (para. 41, 53) to the first cooling stage (22) and extends along a plane perpendicular to the axial direction (para. 31, 46) in the cryopump intake port (12), and a gas inlet (para. 46, space between 32 and 30, see Fig. 1 at least) formed between the intake port plate (32) and the radiation shield (30);
a cryopanel (at least 41) that is thermally coupled to the second cooling stage (24) and is disposed inside the radiation shield (30), and a frost accommodation space (at least 33a) is formed between the cryopanel (at least 41) and the intake port plate (32); and
a skirt (29; para. 49) that is thermally coupled (para. 53) to the first cooling stage (22) and extends from an outer periphery (per circumferential direction) of the intake port plate (32) into the radiation shield (30; see figures), and
a gas flow path (path between 32 and 30) connecting the gas inlet (space between 32 and 30) to the frost accommodation space (at least 33a) is formed between the skirt (part of 29) and the radiation shield (30).
In regard to claim 2, Oikawa teaches that the cryopanel (at least 41) includes a top cryopanel (41) disposed closest to the intake port plate (32) in the axial direction, and an axial length of the skirt (29) is smaller than an axial distance from the intake port plate (32) to the top cryopanel (41).
In regard to claim 3, Oikawa teaches that the axial length of the skirt (29) is smaller than about 1/2 of the axial distance from the intake port plate (32) to the top cryopanel (41).
In regard to claim 4, Oikawa teaches that a diameter (inner diameter of 29) of the skirt (29) is smaller than a diameter (outer diameter of 41) of the top cryopanel (41).
In regard to claim 5, Oikawa teaches that the skirt (29) extends parallel to the radiation shield (30).
In regard to claim 6, Oikawa teaches that a radial distance (20) from the radiation shield (30) to the cryopump container (18) in the cryopump intake port (12) is larger than a radial distance (see fig. 1-2 at least) from the skirt (part of 29) to the radiation shield in the gas flow path (path between 32 and 30).
In regard to claim 7, Oikawa teaches that the radiation shield (30) includes a shield upper portion (38) disposed close to the cryopump intake port (12), and a shield lower portion (40) disposed away from the cryopump intake port (12), and the shield upper portion (38) and the shield lower portion (40) are disposed with a shield gap (36) therebetween, and an axial length of the skirt (29) is smaller than an axial distance from the intake port plate (32) to the shield gap (36).
In regard to claim 8, Oikawa teaches that the cryopanel (at least 41) includes a top cryopanel (41) disposed closest to the intake port plate (32), and the axial distance from the intake port plate (32) to the shield gap (36) is larger than an axial distance from the intake port plate (32) to the top cryopanel (41).
In regard to claim 9, Oikawa teaches that the intake port plate (32) includes at least one opening portion (32a).
In regard to claim 10, Oikawa teaches that the at least one opening portion (32a) is formed in a center portion (middle area includes 32a) of the intake port plate (32).
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takahashi (WO 2020/049917) cited by the applicant. 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, Takahashi teaches a cryopump (see whole disclosure, 10) comprising:
a cryopump container (70) that defines a cryopump intake port (12, page 9);
a cryocooler (16; page 2) that is installed in the cryopump container (70) and includes a first cooling stage (22) and a second cooling stage (24) that is cooled to a lower temperature (page 3) than the first cooling stage (22);
a radiation shield (30) that is thermally coupled (page 3) to the first cooling stage (22) and extends in an axial direction (page 2) from the cryopump intake port (12) into the cryopump container (70);
an intake port plate (at least portion of 32) that is thermally coupled (page 3) to the first cooling stage (22) and extends along a plane perpendicular to the axial direction (page 2) in the cryopump intake port (12), and a gas inlet (para. 46, space between part of 48 and 30, see Fig. 1 at least) formed between the intake port plate (32) and the radiation shield (30);
a cryopanel (at least 61) that is thermally coupled to the second cooling stage (24) and is disposed inside the radiation shield (30), and a frost accommodation space (at least part of space between 61 and 32) is formed between the cryopanel (at least 61) and the intake port plate (32); and
a skirt (48, page 5) that is thermally coupled (page 5) to the first cooling stage (22) and extends from an outer periphery (see Fig. 1) of the intake port plate (32) into the radiation shield (30; see figures), and
a gas flow path (path between part of 48 and 30) connecting the gas inlet (space between part of 48 and 30) to the frost accommodation space (at least part of space between 61 and 32) is formed between the skirt (48) and the radiation shield (30).
In regard to claim 2, Takahashi teaches that the cryopanel (at least 61) includes a top cryopanel (61) disposed closest to the intake port plate (32) in the axial direction, and an axial length of the skirt (48) is smaller than an axial distance from the intake port plate (32) to the top cryopanel (61).
In regard to claim 5, Takahashi teaches that the skirt (48) extends parallel to the radiation shield (30).
In regard to claim 9, Takahashi teaches that the intake port plate (32) includes at least one opening portion (32a).
In regard to claim 10, Takahshi teaches that the at least one opening portion (32a) is formed in a center portion (middle area includes 32a) of the intake port plate (32).
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
Prosecution Insights