Election/Restrictions
Amendments filed 4 September 2026 have been entered.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim 5-8 and 11-18 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 101 arguments with respect to claim 1 are addressed in the 101 section below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the § 103 rejection of Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 19, and 20 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant’s position rests on a piecemeal analysis that isolates the teachings of the secondary reference, Tang, from the primary reference, Kaiser, and fails to recognize the combined effect of the prior art
Applicant argues that Tang does not teach “comparing recent data to historical data to assess wear,” citing Tang, paragraphs 0033 and 0039. Applicant’s argument is flawed because it ignores the explicit teachings of the primary reference, Kaiser.
Kaiser explicitly discloses using historical data under a broadest reasonable interpretation by providing and analyzing historical values of pump inlet pressure taken at earlier time points (Kaiser, par 0015). Kaiser establishes comparing current operational states against historical data to identify wear.
Tang, in view of Kaiser, provides the specific mechanism for this comparison and action. Tang discloses recording previous operations that encounter problems and automatically adjusting operational parameters based on a comparison of current measurement data to historic data (Tang, par 0033). When combined with Kaiser’s teaching of assessing scroll pump wear via pressure (par 0016), a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply Tang’s historical comparison and automatic adjustment logic to Kaiser’s pump monitoring system. This combined system would inherently compare recent pump data to historical pump data to determine if maintenance of scroll tip seals is required, thereby meeting the limitations of Claims 1 and 20.
Applicant's conclusion that Tang does not teach comparing recent data to historical data to assess the wear of any pump component is piecemeal analysis because the primary reference Kaiser is explicitly about historic data and present data used to assess wear.
While Tangs modification teaches using the claimed pressures in the avoidance of undesirable conditions using historic data and present data. Tang is an improvement on the assessment of wear in Kaiser. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of the secondary reference are “bodily incorporated” or whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in a single reference. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 416. Here, the combined teachings of Kaiser (historical baseline for wear) and Tang (comparing current to historical for adjustment/diagnosis) clearly suggest the claimed method.
On page 19-20 applicant cites an uncited Tang embodiment and argues that Tang teaches comparing historical pump pressure to maximum pump pressure data. This argument is misplaced. The Office Action relies on Tang’s disclosure of comparing measurement data associated with a condition measured during performance to historic data, and automatically adjusting parameters based on that comparison (Tang, par 0033, 0039). Applicant’s focus on “maximum pressure” limits is irrelevant to the core limitation of comparing recent data to historical data to determine a state of wear or need for maintenance.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that adding Tang to Kaiser would merely add the function of monitoring pump pressure to avoid exceeding a maximum pressure. This characterization is incorrect. The limitation in Claim 1 is not merely to “avoid exceeding a maximum,” but to “determine that tip seal maintenance… is required” based on the comparison. Tang’s teaching of using historical data to identify problems and adjust parameters directly supports this determination. Applicant has failed to explain why the combined teaching of Kaiser and Tang does not meet this specific limitation, relying instead on an overly narrow and uncited embodiment of Tang.
This is not convincing because applicant is not citing the embodiments or elements of Tang cited in the office action, where Tang discloses comparing historical data to real time data (par 0033, 0039). Applicant then argues that adding Tang to Kaiser would merely add the function of monitoring pump pressure to avoid exceeding a maximum pump pressure or rate of increase in pump pressure. Applicant has not explained how this result does not meet the claimed limitations in claims 1 and 20.
Applicant argues that there is no suggestion that Tang's use of historical pump pressure data could be applied to modify or replace Kaiser's existing function of comparing measured pump pressure to a threshold value. This is the wrong legal standard. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, given that Kaiser already uses historical data for pump wear assessment and planning maintenance, and Tang teaches comparing historical data to current data for planning operation and avoiding equipment failure, the combination is an obvious improvement on planning operations to avoid equipment failure, such as seal failure.
Applicant argues that Tang is not analogous art to applicant’s claimed invention because it is not “from the same field of endeavor” as applicant’s claim 1.
A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if: (1) the reference is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention (even if it addresses a different problem); or (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention) (MPEP 2141.01(a)). A reference need not fulfill both tests; satisfying one is sufficient.
The Instant Invention addresses predicting equipment degradation to avoid unplanned shutdowns. Specifically, the specification discloses that as tip seals wear, inlet pressure rises with an increasing slope until performance is adversely affected [0010]. The inventor seeks a solution where “the user be able to know, well in advance… whether the time is approaching for a tip seal replacement” to schedule maintenance before vacuum performance is lost [0015]. Thus, the core problem is predicting equipment degradation via pressure trend analysis to plan maintenance.
Tang teaches using historical data patterns to predict equipment failure and plan operations. Tang analyzes prior operations encountering problems like “equipment failure or excessive pressure” to recognize patterns over time that may allow for prediction of events (par [0033]). Tang uses this analysis to “plan and/or improve plans for a prospective operation,” forming guidelines for equipment operation [0008], [0036].
Tang is reasonably pertinent because it addresses the same functional problem: using historical pressure data trends to predict equipment failure states for operational / maintenance planning purposes. Tang’s “equipment failure” genus encompasses the Instant Invention’s specific species of “tip seal wear.” Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that planned maintenance is part of operational planning because a system does not operate effectively without maintenance. Therefore, Tang’s method of using historical patterns to plan operations is reasonably pertinent to an inventor seeking to predict tip seal wear for maintenance scheduling. Tang is analogous art under the reasonably pertinent test.
Applicant does not include any further analysis for claims 2-4, 9-10, 10 and 20. Therefore the claims rejection would be maintained for the same reasons explained above.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
The amendment to claim 1 recites “wherein the determining the pump inlet pressure” delete “the” before determining, so that it says, “wherein determining the pump inlet pressure.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 and Response to 101 Arguments
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 10, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recitation “a method for assessing scroll pump tip seal wear” is a mental process which requires “determining that tip seal maintenance for the scroll pump and/or further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required.” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “determining” encompasses evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind (Applicant explicitly discloses that the user assess the condition of the scroll pump, Applicant’s Specification, par 0018; or the method waits for the user to make a determination, par 0019). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “determining” does not apply the determination to the scroll pump and effect some change to the pump (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no further method steps recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Claim 1 is directed to a method which meets Step 1 of patent eligibility analysis. The claim 1 method, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses evaluations that can be performed in the human mind (determining whether maintenance is required based on pressure data comparison), which is a judicial exception and meets Step 2A, Prong One of patent eligibility analysis.
Step 2B, Prong Two of patent eligibility analysis asks whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or is "directed to" the judicial exception.
The evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application.
The amended claim 1 newly recites the additional elements "operating the scroll pump" in conjunction with "operating the scroll pump to pump the fluid" in conjunction with "a sensor configured to measure the pump inlet pressure or to measure an operating parameter from which the pump inlet pressure can be calculated," and "determining pump inlet pressure to acquire recent pump data comprising recent values of pump inlet pressure over the recent time period, wherein the determining the pump inlet pressure comprises controlling and receiving input from the sensor."
The use of an inlet pressure sensor to acquire recent values of pump inlet pressure is pre-solution activity that constitutes well-known extra-solution activity, and the limitation amounts to mere necessary data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The newly claimed "operating the scroll pump" in conjunction with "a sensor configured to measure the pump inlet pressure," is the claimed matter. The integration of an intake sensor to monitor inlet pressure of a scroll compressor is well-understood, routine and conventional, and widely available as a commercially available product (MPEP 2106.07(a)(II)). The attached NPL are sales brochures, and commercial product manuals from the relevant scroll compressor industry which shows the commercial availability of the intake pressure sensor in a scroll compressor (MPEP 2106.07(a)(III)).
A) Carrier scroll compressor brochure (2025) shows that control systems monitor compressor suction pressure during startup and as a regular operating parameter (page 10, page 11).
B) Copeland evidences that compressors are sold with integrated sensors to monitor suction pressure (page 2).
C) Pfeiffer evidences dry scroll compressors with intake pressure sensor (page 20, 43).
The above evidentiary examples show the wide commercial availability of the inlet pressure sensor measuring normal operation of the scroll compressor, and therefore reasonably indicates that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature. Therefore, the physical transformation or activity that cannot be performed by the human mind is extra-solution activity which does not amount to significantly more than the exception and does not pass Step 2B of the analysis.
Therefore, claim 1 constitutes judicial exception of an abstract idea which is not integrated into a practical application and is rejected under 101 subject matter eligibility. Dependent claims 2-19 are correspondingly rejected.
Claim 2 is dependent on the method of claim 1, which is a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, as shown above. Claim 2 constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity and is also subject to a 101 rejection.
Claim 2 further requires “[a] providing of historical data comprises at least one of: [b] operating the scroll pump under assessment and measuring the pump inlet pressure to acquire the historical values; [c] accessing a database comprising the historical values of pump inlet pressure over the historical time period, [d] wherein the historical values were acquired by operating one or more scroll pumps other than the scroll pump under assessment.”
The steps of [a] providing data and [c] accessing a database do not amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05) because the additional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network, and storing and retrieving information in memory have been recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II); Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015)).
The steps of [b] operating the scroll pump and measuring to acquire values and [d] acquire value by operating one or more scroll pumps do not amount to significantly more (MPEP 2106.05) because the “measuring” or “acquiring” of an operating pump is an insignificant extra-solution activity that amounts to mere conventional data gathering by a well-understood, routine, conventional measurement activity (MPEP 2106.05(d); Determining the level of a biomarker in blood by any means, Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. True Health Diagnostics, LLC, 859 F.3d 1352, 1362, 123 USPQ2d 1081, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
Therefore, claim 2 constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity on the method of claim 1, and is rejected under 101 subject matter eligibility.
Claim 9 is dependent on the method of claim 1, which is a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, as shown above. Claim 9 constitutes a mathematical process that has not been integrated into practical application and is also subject to a 101 rejection.
Claim 9 further requires “calculating a first slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the first slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a most recent time-slice of the recent time period; calculating a second slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the second slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a historical time-slice of the historical time period; and determining that the first slope value exceeds the second slope value by a threshold value.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “calculating” and “determining” steps encompasses mathematical concepts such as the calculation of slope values and the determination of whether a first slope value exceed a second slope value. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “determining” or “calculating” does not apply the determination or calculation to the scroll pump and effect some change to the pump (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no further method steps recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Claim 10 is dependent on the method of claim 9, which is a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, as shown above. Claim 10 constitutes a mathematical concept that has not been integrated into practical application and is also subject to a 101 rejection. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements amount to mere data gathering which constitute well -understood, routine, conventional activity in particular fields.
Claim 10 further requires “ [a] wherein the threshold value is a difference between the first slope value and the second slope value; [b] wherein the threshold value is a ratio of the first slope value and the second slope value; [c] wherein the historical time-slice and the most recent time-slice have the same duration; [d] wherein the historical time-slice immediately precedes the most recent time-slice.”
Claim 10 is incidental to the mathematical calculation of claim 9. Claim 10 further defines the mathematical relationships as “[a] a difference” “[b] a ratio” and “[d] a same duration.”
The steps of [d] under its broadest reasonable interpretation “the historical time-slice immediately precedes the most recent time-slice” characterizes claim 1 “providing historic pump data” and “acquire recent pump data”. The limitation is mere data gathering as it is necessary to acquire the data in order to use the recited judicial exception for the calculations of claim 1. The limitation does not provide any other meaningful limitation which integrates the exception into a practical application that affects a change on the scroll compressor as a result of the determining in claim 1.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “determining” or “calculating” does not apply the determination or calculation to the scroll pump and effect some change to the pump (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no further method steps recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Claim 19 is dependent on the method of claim 1, which is a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application, as shown above. Claim 19 is also a mental process that has not been integrated into practical application and is also subject to a 101 rejection.
Claim 19 further requires “wherein the determining that the tip seal maintenance and/or the further diagnosis is required is based on determining that a threshold value corresponding to at least one of the plurality of calculated values has been exceeded, or determining that threshold values respectively corresponding to at least two of the plurality of calculated values have been exceeded.”
Under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the “determining” encompasses evaluations that are practically performed in the human mind (Applicant explicitly discloses that the user assess the condition of the scroll pump, Applicant’s Specification, par 0018; or the method waits for the user to make a determination, par 0019). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed “determining” does not apply the determination to the scroll pump and effect some change to the pump (See MPEP 2106.05). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no further method steps recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Therefore, claim 19 constitutes judicial exception of an abstract idea which is not integrated into a practical application and is rejected under 101 subject matter eligibility.
Response to 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection Arguments
The Applicant's arguments regarding the amended claim 1 and the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The following analysis addresses each of applicant's contentions in turn.
Applicant argues on page 10 of the remarks (Remarks, 4 September 2026), that the examiner has not considered "operating the scroll pump to pump the fluid ..." in conjunction with the other recited elements. This analysis of the new elements is the Step 2B prong of patent eligibility analysis.
Applicant argues on page 10-11, that "pump[ing]" fluid from the pump inlet [through 'a pumping stage'] to the pump outlet, constitutes the physical transformation of matter. However, this normal operation of a scroll pump is considered insignificant extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature, as evidenced by applicant’s background disclosure which explains how the operation is widely utilized as a compressor (See Applicant's spec, par 0002-0003). Therefore, the claimed element does not amount to significantly more than the exception.
Applicant argues on page 11, "the operation use of a sensor constitutes a physical transformation of matter by measuring the fluid and converting the measurement to an output signal representative of the measurement," and “cannot be performed by the human mind.” However, using sensors to measure the intake pressure of an operating scroll pump is well-understood, routine, and conventional, as evidenced by the commercial examples above. Therefore, the use of the sensor to measure pressure constitutes extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the exception and does not pass Step 2B of the analysis.
Applicant argues on page 11 that "controlling and receiving input from a sensor configured to measure the pump inlet pressure," are "required for implementing" the comparing of the recent pump data and the historic pump data. The 2-Step analysis shows that "comparing the recent pump data and the historic pump data" constitutes the mental process which is the judicial exception.
Step 2B asks whether the "determining the pump inlet pressure comprises controlling and receiving input from the sensor," amounts extra-solution activity that amounts to significantly more. The MPEP gives specific examples which show that the claimed element is toward necessary data gathering and outputting that is required in the recited mental process and does not pass Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05(g)). In the instant case, the claimed mental process requires the inlet pressure sensor data to make the mental determination. The use of measured data derived from a sensor scan to be used in an analysis is a specific case example of mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g), Determining the level of a biomarker in blood, Mayo, See also PerkinElmer, Inc. v. Intema Ltd., assessing or measuring data derived from an ultrasound scan, to be used in a diagnosis). The caselaw is analogous because an ultrasound scan produces data from ultrasound sensors, in the same way that applicant claims data produced from the claimed inlet pressure sensor; and in both the caselaw and the instant claim, the data is used in a mental process to make a determination (the claimed analysis of tip seal wear is the same type of determination as the caselaw diagnosis of a medical condition). Therefore, the controlling and receiving input from the sensor is mere data gathering that constitutes extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the exception and does not pass Step 2B of the analysis.
Applicant argues on page 11, that the "based on the operating, determining pump inlet pressure" requires operating the scroll pump to generate the inlet pressure, and that the comparing and diagnosis could therefore not be performed in the human mind without "operating the scroll pump" and "controlling and receiving input from a sensor." As shown in evidence above, the inlet pressure sensor measuring the operating scroll pump is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the commercial availability of the product and therefore constitutes extra-solution activity that does not amount to significantly more than the exception and does not pass Step 2B of the analysis.
Applicant argues on page 11-12 that claim 1 does not preempt or monopolize the "based on the comparison determining ..." element but limits it to a specific context. The rule is that preemption is not a standalone test for determining eligibility, "the absence of preemption does not demonstrate that a claim is eligible." (MPEP 2106.04 citing Diamond v. Diehr). The question of preemption is inherent in and resolved by the two-part framework applied throughout this analysis (MPEP 2106.04, Citing Alice Corp. and Mayo (the Alice/Mayo test referred to by the Office as Steps 2A and 2B)). Therefore, applicant's argument regarding preemption is inherently addressed by the complete 2-Step analysis being put forth.
On page 12, applicant relies on an assertion that Diehr’s claim 1 is analogous to applicant's claim 1 and therefore eligible. In Diehr's case, the issue is whether the inclusion of a mathematical equation dooms the claims to abstraction (MPEP 2106). Applicant's claim 1 analogy with Diehr goes toward Mayo Step 1 and Step 2A analysis. Diehr and Applicant's claim 1 differ in at least the analysis of Step 2B and the analysis of extra-solution activity. In Diehr's case, if a Mayo Analysis were applied, the results of the Diehr equation were integrated into practical application with post-solution activity by "opening the press automatically when a said comparison indicates equivalence," and would pass Step 2B analysis. In contrast to Diehr, where the computer output directly controlled a physical process (opening the press), Applicant's Claim 1 only outputs a recommendation, and it does not automatically control or modify the pump’s operation, and applicant does not claim any other elements which could be considered post-solution activity to integrate the solution into practice. As explained above, applicant's pre-solution activity constitutes extra-solution activity which does not pass Step 2B analysis, and applicant does not include any post-solution activity. Therefore, applicant’s claims do not pass Step 2B analysis.
On page 13, applicant relies on Thales Visionex, applicant does not include analysis to their own claim 1. They do recite Thales particular improvements to sensors. Thales improvement to sensors is distinguishable from applicant's use of sensors. In Thales, the claimed configuration of the sensors was novel, while in applicant's case, the placement of the sensors in the inlet of the operating compressor is well-understood, routine and conventional, and widely available as a commercially available product. Applicant does not provide evidence that placement and use of the intake pressure sensor in an operating compressor is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. Therefore, the use of applicant’s sensors constitutes extra-solution activity that does not pass Step 2B analysis, as explained above.
On page 13, applicant relies on PowerBlock and argues that the claims are analogous because PowerBlock is limited to a specific implementation of a technological improvement to a "method for assessing scroll pump tip seal wear." Like the analysis of Diehr above. PowerBlock and Applicant's claim 1 differ in at least the analysis of Step 1, where the court determined that PowerBlock was not an abstract idea. In PowerBlock's case, the improvement was directed to a mechanical dumbbell. Arguendo, if Prong 2A were applicable, any abstract idea would be integrated into practical application by claim 1 ending with "the electric motor ... physically moves the selector into the adjustment position corresponding to the desired exercise weight." PowerBlock’s claim 1 integrates any abstract ideas into practical application by causing the physical movement of the selector. In contrast, Applicant's claim 1 only outputs a recommendation, and it does not physically modify the pump’s operation, and applicant does not include any post-solution activity to integrate the solution into practice. As explained above, applicant's pre-solution activity constitutes extra-solution activity which does not pass Step 2B analysis, and applicant does not include any post-solution activity. Therefore, applicant’s claims do not pass Step 2B analysis.
On page 14, applicant concludes that based on CardioNet that the "based on the comparing, determining" is not an abstract idea. Applicant has overlooked that the court in CardioNet was not persuaded by the "specific improvement" argument and held that the invention was directed to the abstract idea of filtering patient heartbeat signals (See CardioNet page 8, 9). Specifically, the court concluded that the claim provides "no specific way to collect and process the data or to implement the T wave filter ... and it leaves that decision to the operator" (CardioNet, page 9). The court decided that the claims were abstract ideas under Alice Step 1. Applicant has not provided analysis as to why their claims pass the 2-Step analysis and are eligible subject matter and differ from the determination of patent ineligible subject matter in CardioNet (CardioNet, page 14).
On page 14-16, applicant relies on Constellation Designs and argues that applicant's specification shows that the mental process "based on the comparing determining" involves that element with the other recited elements and constitutes a concrete technical solution to the problem. Applicant's recitation of their specification elements is unclaimed subject matter in claim 1. The 101 analysis is based upon the elements that are actually claimed. While applicant's claimed invention is a technical solution to a problem as disclosed in applicant's specification; claim 1 is limited to actually claimed limitations. The extra-solution activity that is disclosed in applicant’s specification but not claimed does integrate the technical solution and mental process into practical application. Furthermore, the claimed extra-solution activity does not pass Step 2B analysis, as explained above.
On page 16, applicant argues that the invention is not rendered ineligible for patent simply because it involves an abstract concept. As explained above, there is a multi-step process to determine whether a judicial exception is eligible subject matter. While applicant’s claims include an abstract concept, the existence of the abstract concept itself is not the grounds for which the claims are rendered ineligible. Abstract ideas with sufficient extra-solution activity can pass Step 2B of 101 analysis. In contrast, applicant has not shown how their claimed invention passes the 2-Step analysis.
Page 16 continues with a summation of the arguments above in points 1-6. The arguments would be answered in the same way as addressed above.
In summary, Applicant's Claim 1 only outputs a recommendation, and it does not automatically control or modify the pump’s operation. The recommendation is not applied to the operation of the scroll compressor; therefore, it does not constitute post-solution activity which integrates the solution into practice. Similarly, the pre-solution activity of operating the scroll pump and measuring intake pressure constitutes extra-solution activity that is well-understood, routine and conventional, and widely available as a commercially available product, which does not integrate the solution into practice. Therefore, applicant’s claim 1 does not pass Step 2B analysis.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The amendment to Claim 1 recites “wherein [[the]] determining the pump inlet pressure comprises controlling and receiving input from the sensor.” The term “controlling … the input from the sensor” is a functional limitation and applicant has not provided an explanation of the function or how the function is meant to be accomplished. The applicant does disclose a “controller” element, however that controller has several functional duties. The controller assesses tip seal wear, provides historical pump data, operates the scroll pump, determines pump inlet pressure, compares recent pump data, determines tip seal maintenance, and/or further diagnosis is required (par 0042), monitor and time functional aspects of the vacuum pumping system, communicate the data wired or wirelessly (par 0105) control pump speed, pump inlet and outlet pressure, control the motor, control different operational modes automatically (par 0106). All of these functions may reasonably be considered a result of the control of data from the sensor. It is unclear which of these functions, if any, is the claimed function. Therefore, the intended scope of the functional term “controlling ... the input from the sensor” cannot be envisaged from the originally filed specification. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to determine that applicant had possession of the claimed “comprising controlling … the input from the sensor.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1-4, 9, 10 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaiser (US 2023/0392600) in view of Tang (US 2016/0208595).
Claim 1, Kaiser discloses a method for assessing scroll pump tip seal wear (wear on the seals is inferred on the basis of pressure, par 0016, 0017, 0039), the method comprising:
providing a dry scroll pump comprising (scroll pump includes replaceable scroll tip seals, par 0004, 0005; this meets applicant’s definition of a dry scroll pump, See Applicant’s Spec, par 0006): a pump inlet (12, par 0055); a pump outlet (14); a pumping stage (scrolls 16/18, transport of fluid from inlet to outlet conventionally constitutes a stage, par 0003) comprising a first scroll (18) and a second scroll (16) nested together, wherein the first scroll is configured to orbit about a drive axis (common axis 34, par 0055) relative to the second scroll to pump fluid from the pump inlet to the pump outlet (scroll 18 is rotated by a motor, par 0055), and the second scroll is fixedly positioned (scroll 16 acts as a stator, par 0003, 0055) in an axial direction relative to the drive axis (fig 1A, shows scrolls 16 are integral to the outer housing and therefore do not move axially relative to the housing, scroll 16 acts as a stator, par 0003, 0055); a first scroll tip seal mounted to the first scroll (fig 2, seal 42 of surface 42 on scroll 18, par 0059); and a second scroll tip seal mounted to the second scroll (seal 42 in wall 28 of scroll 16, par 0058);
and a sensor configured to measure the pump inlet pressure (measuring pressure with pressure sensor 68 at the inlet, par 0023, 0038, 0066, FIRST OF TWO ALTERNATIVES) or to measure an operating parameter from which the pump inlet pressure can be calculated (SECOND OF TWO ALTERNATIVES);
providing historical pump data comprising historical values of pump inlet pressure (a first pressure taken at the inlet, par 0026-0027) over a historical time period (a first pressure at a first time point, par 0015);
operating the scroll pump to pump the fluid (operating a pump under the same pumping conditions at a first time point and a later point, par 0015), wherein the operating is done during a recent time period preceded by the historical time period (operating at a later time point after a first time point, par 0015);
during the operating, determining pump inlet pressure to acquire recent pump data comprising recent values of pump inlet pressure over the recent time period (second pressure at a later time point, par 0015; data is transferred from pressure sensor to control device 62, par 0037, 0066)
wherein determining the pump inlet pressure comprises controlling and receiving input from the sensor (measuring pressure with pressure sensor 68 at the inlet, par 0023, 0038, 0066, control device implements the method par 0037, the control device receiving pressure data from the sensor is necessary for it to determine whether the pressure meets the threshold value, par 0068, under a BRI of the term controlling, the analysis of the data by the controller at least nominally meets the function of controlling because a controller is doing the analysis of data);
comparing the recent pump data and the historical pump data (comparing the first pressure and the second pressure, par 0015, 0027); and
based on the comparing, determining that tip seal maintenance for the scroll pump (second threshold passed and servicing is required, par 0018; service planning based on detected wear, par 0019) and/or further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required (id.).
Kaiser is silent on the historical time period and recent time period being compared to each other, because both the historical time period and recent time period are compared to a threshold (Kaiser, “it can also be a pressure that is recorded under the same pumping conditions, so that there is comparability between the pressure determined at a first time point and the pressure determined at a later time point,” par 0015).
Tang teaches a method for historical data analysis for a measured condition and the automatic control of a pump based on that analysis (par 0033, 0043), wherein historical data is compared to current measurement data (historical data, par 0033, real time data, par 0039), then the operations are adjusted based on the comparison (par 0003, such as pump pressure and flow rate, par 0011), in order to detect problem situations with equipment and control operations to avoid problems (par 0001) and control automatic operation of the pump so that the undesirable conditions can be immediately and quickly remedied (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure monitoring method of Kaiser by adding the historical time period comparison to the current measurement data taught by Tang in order to enable automatic control of the pump and a response in real time to avoid undesirable conditions and optimize the control process (Tang, par 0043), which enables improving plans for operation to avoid equipment failure (Tang, par 0008, 0033, 0036) such as Kaisers motivation to optimize replacing seals as they wear, rather than too early or too late after failure (Kaiser, par 0006, 0016).
Claim 2, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the dryscroll pump is a scroll pump under assessment (Kaiser, par 0015), and the providing of the historical pump data comprises at least one of: operating the scroll pump under assessment and measuring the pump inlet pressure to acquire the historical values (Kaiser, measuring pressure with pressure sensor 68 at the inlet, par 0023, 0038, 0066; Tang, historic data compared to current data of a pump, par 0042-0043, THE FIRST OF TWO ALTERNATIVES;); accessing a database comprising the historical values of pump inlet pressure over the historical time period, wherein the historical values were acquired by operating one or more scroll pumps other than the scroll pump under assessment (THE SECOND OF TWO ALTERNATIVES; Tang, retrieve historic data from a database, par 0028, 0047).
Claim 3, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, comprising, after the determining that tip seal maintenance for the scroll pump and/or further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required, at least one of:
shutting down the scroll pump and replacing the first scroll tip seal (first of three alternates, Kaiser, seals are replaced during servicing after the alarm indicates seal ear to the user, par 0005, 0016, 0032, 0065, 0066) and/or the second scroll tip seal with a new first scroll tip seal (second of three alternates, seals are replaced during servicing after the alarm indicates seal ear to the user, par 0005, 0016, 0032, 0065, 0066) and/or a new second scroll tip seal (third of three alternatives, seals are replaced during servicing after the alarm indicates seal ear to the user, par 0005, 0016, 0032, 0065, 0066); producing a user-interpretable output indicating that the tip seal maintenance and/or the further diagnosis is required (warning signal to user, par 0016; condition of signal to user is indicated, par 0018, 0021, 0032, 0044, 0066).
Claim 4, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, comprising, after the determining that further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required, outputting a communication to a user that directs the user to perform diagnostics on the scroll pump to determine whether tip seal replacement or other maintenance on the scroll pump is required (Kaiser, warning signal to user, par 0016; condition of signal to user is indicated, par 0018, 0021, 0032, 0044, 0066).
Claim 9, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the determining that the tip seal maintenance and/or the further diagnosis is required comprises:
calculating a first slope value of inlet pressure over time (Tang, a pressure change over time gradient which causes a negative affect is detected and an alert given or shutdown, par 0040), wherein the first slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a most recent time-slice of the recent time period (Tang, if the levels are detected during current operations the system is adjusted or shutdown, par 0040);
calculating a second slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the second slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a historical time-slice of the historical time period (Tang, the previous operation gradients of pressure over time which cause negative effects are used as a basis of comparison, par 0040).
Tang is silent on the determining that the first slope value exceeds the second slope value by a threshold value. This is because Tang determines whether “such levels or gradients are detected” (par 0040). This phrase can reasonably be interpreted as determining whether the first slope and second slope value are substantially equal.
Nevertheless, in light of applicant’s specification the limitation “determining that the first slope value exceeds the second slope value by a threshold value” is equivalent to Tang’s disclosure of detecting the gradient which negatively affects operation because, Tang implicitly has exceeded the upper threshold of normal operation that does not cause negative effects in order to reach a gradient that causes negative effects. Therefore, Kaiser in view of Tang meets the limitation “determining that the first slope value exceeds the second slope value by a threshold value,” implicitly.
Claim 10, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 9, comprising at least one of:
wherein the threshold value is a difference between the first slope value and the second slope value (FIRST ALTERNATE OF FOUR);
wherein the threshold value is a ratio of the first slope value and the second slope value (SECOND ALTERNATE OF FOUR);
wherein the historical time-slice and the most recent time-slice have the same duration (Tang, determine whether the previous operation and current operations have the same gradient pressure changes over time; par 0040, reasonably an equal gradient has the same change in pressure over the same period of time, indicate that their duration is the same THIRD ALTERNATE OF FOUR);
wherein the historical time-slice immediately precedes the most recent time-slice (FOURTH ALTERNATE OF FOUR ).
Claim 19, Kaiser in view of Tang makes obvious the method of claim 1, comprising:
calculating a plurality of calculated values comprising two or more of the following values:
…
a slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a set duration of the recent time period (Combination of Kaiser in view of Tang; Tang, Historic data, par 0042; Kaiser, inlet pressure, par 0055; the THIRD ALTERNATE OF EIGHT);
a first slope value of inlet pressure over time, wherein the first slope value is based on values of pump inlet pressure acquired during a most recent time-slice of the recent time period (Combination of Kaiser in view of Tang; Tang, current real time monitored data which are compared to historic operations, par 0039-0042; Kaiser, inlet pressure, par 0055; FOURTH ALTERNATE OF EIGHT);
…
wherein the determining that the tip seal maintenance and/or the further diagnosis is required is based on determining that a threshold value corresponding to at least one of the plurality of calculated values has been exceeded (Tang, operating in the gradient of negative affects indicates that implicitly the pump has exceeded the upper limit threshold of normal operation without negative effects, par 0040; FIRST ALTERNATE OF TWO).
Claim 20, Kaiser discloses a dry scroll pump (scroll pump includes replaceable scroll tip seals, par 0004, 0005; this meets applicant’s definition of a dry scroll pump, See Applicant’s Spec, par 0006), comprising:
a pump inlet (12, par 0055); a pump outlet (14); a dry pumping stage (transport of fluid from inlet to outlet conventionally constitutes a stage, par 0003) comprising a first scroll (18) and a second scroll (16) nested together, wherein the first scroll is configured to orbit about a drive axis (common axis 34, par 0055) relative to the second scroll to pump fluid from the pump inlet to the pump outlet (scroll 18 is rotated by a motor, par 0055), and the second scroll is fixedly positioned in an axial direction relative to the drive axis (scroll 16 acts as a stator, par 0003, 0055); a first scroll tip seal mounted to the first scroll (fig 2, seal 42 of surface 42 on scroll 18, par 0059); a second scroll tip seal mounted to the second scroll (seal 42 in wall 28 of scroll 16, par 0058); a sensor (fig 4, pressure sensor 68 at inlet, par 0038, 0066) configured to measure pump inlet pressure (inlet pressure , par 0038; first of two alternatives) or to measure an operating parameter from which the pump inlet pressure can be calculated (second of two alternatives); and
a controller (control device 62, par 0021, 0037, 0066) configured to assess tip seal wear, by controlling or performing an operation comprising:
providing historical pump data comprising historical values of pump inlet pressure (a first pressure taken at the inlet, par 0026-0027) over a historical time period (a first pressure at a first time point, par 0015); operating the scroll pump to pump the fluid (operating a pump under the same pumping conditions at a first time point and a later point, par 0015), wherein the operating is done during a recent time period preceded by the historical time period (operating at a later time point after a first time point, par 0015); during the operating, determining pump inlet pressure to acquire recent pump data comprising recent values of pump inlet pressure over the recent time period (second pressure at a later time point, par 0015; data is transferred from pressure sensor to control device 62, par 0037, 0066); comparing the recent pump data and the historical pump data (comparing the first pressure and the second pressure, par 0015, 0027); and based on the comparing, determining that tip seal maintenance for the scroll pump (second threshold passed and servicing is required, par 0018; service planning based on detected wear, par 0019) and/or further diagnosis of the scroll pump is required (id.).
Kaiser is silent on the historical time period and recent time period being compared to each other, because both the historical time period and recent time period are compared to a threshold (Kaiser, “it can also be a pressure that is recorded under the same pumping conditions, so that there is comparability between the pressure determined at a first time point and the pressure determined at a later time point,” par 0015).
Tang teaches a method for historical data analysis for a measured condition and the automatic control of a pump based on that analysis (par 0033, 0043), wherein historical data is compared to current measurement data (historical data, par 0033, real time data, par 0039), then the operations are adjusted based on the comparison (par 0003, such as pump pressure and flow rate, par 0011), in order to detect problem situations with equipment and control operations to avoid problems (par 0001) and control automatic operation of the pump so that the undesirable conditions can be immediately and quickly remedied (par 0043).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure monitoring method of Kaiser by adding the historical time period comparison to the current measurement data taught by Tang in order to enable automatic control of the pump and a response in real time to avoid undesirable conditions and optimize (par 0043).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GEOFFREY S LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5354. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 0900-1800.
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, Essama Omgba can be reached at (469) 295-9278. 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.
/GEOFFREY S LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/DOMINICK L PLAKKOOTTAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights