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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification and claims appear to include improper translation into English from a foreign document for the terms “a first heater provided in the first panel” and “a second heater provided in the second panel”. The terms should be amended in both the specification and the claims to be consistent with the foreign priority application and with the ordinary meaning in the art. A review of foreign priority document WO2024054064A1 appears to suggest at least the following terms should be amended as follows: “a first heater provided on the first panel” and “a second heater provided on the second panel”.
See attached translation of foreign priority document WO2024054064A1, paragraph 14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 uses the terms “a first heater provided in the first panel” and “a second heater provided in the second panel” which are objected to for the same reason as the specification objection above. For examination purposes the limitations are understood to be “a first heater provided on the first panel” and “a second heater provided on the second panel”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2-7 are objected to for depending on a rejected claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “first heater in the first panel”, “second heater in the second panel” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that these limitations are understood based on the objection above to be “on” and not “in” the respective panels.
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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 240 and 241. 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 242. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
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 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 “a cryopanel including a first panel… and a second panel” which is considered indefinite. It is unclear how a cryopanel can be composed of two distinct panels. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that “a cryopanel” is no limiting the structure of the invention to a specific component and that the specific required limitation of the claims is that there are two panels which each operate as cryopanels as claimed.
Claim 1 recites “in a state where the cryopump vessel is kept at a pressure at which solid state ice can sublimate into gas vapor” which is considered indefinite. This limitation is unclear if it is a method step or only referring to a time in which the roughing process is utilized. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the roughing process keeps the pressure at the level as claimed.
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation in claim 1 and 4 of “a pressure at which solid state ice can sublimate into gas vapor” is a relative limitation that is understood that as long as the pressure is at any pressure at which solid state ice can sublimate the limitation is met.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US PG Pub 20220106949), hereinafter referred to as Takahashi and Lessard at al. (US Patent No. 5862671), hereinafter referred to as Lessard and Fakuda (US PG Pub 20130219924), hereinafter referred to as Fakuda and Aoki (KR20090076961) and Cassello et al. (US PG Pub 20220389921), hereinafter referred to as Cassello.
With respect to claim 1, Takahashi teaches (Figures 1-2) a method for regenerating a cryopump that includes a cooler including a first stage part and a second stage part (cryocooler 14 is a GM cryocooler two stages, paragraph 16), and configured to cool the first stage part and the second stage part with a high pressure refrigerant (this is how a GM cryocooler operates);l;
a cryopanel including a second panel which is cooled by the second stage part (the cryopanel is coupled to the cooling stage of the cryocooler and cooled to a low temperature of 10 to 20 K, paragraph 16, which as it is 10 to 20K, would be understood to be the second stage); a cryopump vessel configured to surround the cryopanel (cryopump accommodation unit 16a, paragraph 17), a heater (paragraph 36).
the method comprising:
a temperature increasing process of increasing temperatures (Figure 2 is the regeneration method, which has temperature raising process S10, paragraph 36)
roughing process of controlling a roughing valve configured to regulate vacuum within the cryopump vessel in a state wherein the cryopump vessel is kept at a pressure (during exhausting process S10 a rough is performed by rough pumping through a rough valve, paragraph 37, where the pressure of the cryopump is controlled by using the rough valve during regeneration, paragraph 23, as the pressure is brought to a level, it is at some point kept at the pressure as required);
a purging process of supplying a purge gas into the cryopump vessel (exhaust process includes supplying purge gas to the pump trough the purge valve 22, paragraph 37);
and a cool-down process of lowering the temperatures of the second panel (cooling-down process cools the cryopanel to the cryogenic temperature, paragraph 43).
Takahashi does not teach the cryopanel including a first panel which is cooled by the first stage part including a first panel which is cooled by the first stage part such that the cryopanel already present is cooled by the first stage, where the cool down process lowers the temperature of the first panel. It should be noted, that while not showing it, based on the generally understood configuration of a cryopump, the first panel is likely present in Takahashi even though not shown.
Fakuda (Figure 1) teaches that a cryopump with two cooling stages has multiple cryopanels including a first panel (inlet cryopanel) and the enclosure teaches a radiation shield (30) (paragraph 46) which both the second panel (18) and the inlet panel can be seen to be surrounded by the radiation shield, where the first panel (combination of radiation shield and inlet cryopanel) are cooled by the first stage of the cooler (paragraph 46) and during the cooling operation the refrigerator is started (paragraph 83). For the heating process a heater can be provided on the first and second panel (paragraph 51).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Fakuda provided a first panel connected to the radiation shield and thus cooled by the first stage of the cooler of Takahashi with the first panel provided since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby this would provide what is common knowledge in the art of that using a first stage cooled cryopanel would allow for capture an condensation of easier higher temperature condensing gases as well as water and to prevent certain components from reaching the colder second panel.
Fakuda does not teach the cryopump vessel includes the radiation shield which surrounds the first stage part.
Cassello teaches that a radiation shield which is thermally coupled to the firs stage front cryopanel (paragraph 4) within a vessel (42 that is the radiation shield, paragraph 78) and the first stage of the refrigerator (abstract) where the first stage of the refrigerator (34, paragraph 78) can be seen in the figure to be at least partially within the vessel, where it can be seen in the figure that 34 is partially within the radiation shield.
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have included in Takahashi a radiation shield to which both the first stage cooler and the first panel are thermally where the first stage cooler extends into the radiation shield (and is thus surrounded by it) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that providing a radiation shield in this configuration would provide the benefit of shielding the second panel of the cryopanel from thermal radiation.
Takashi does not teach the first panel having a first heater on it and the second panel having a second heater on it where the temperature increasing process is increasing the temperature of the radiation shield and the first panel by turning on the first heater.
Fakuda during a heating operation heating can be provided by a heater on the first panel and the second panel (paragraph 61).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Fakuda to have utilized heaters as part of the first and second panel of Takashi as modified so that during the heating process both heaters are activated since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby raising the temperature of both panels would allow for what would be common knowledge in the art whereby provided individual heaters would allow for specific controlled temperature raise of each panel. As the first panel is heated, so would the radiation shield as they are thermally connected.
Takashi does not teach during the roughing process is one in which the cryopump vessel is in a state where the cryopump vessel is kept at a pressure at which solid-state ice can sublimate into gas state vapor.
Lessard teaches that during a roughing process the pressure is roughed to a base preset pressure of 75 to 100 microns so that the system can advance to be tested and determine if further roughing and purge is needed (Column 4, lines 34-58).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lessard during the roughing process brought to the pressure of the pump to 75 to 100 microns (which is in the range described in the specification of 10^-2 to 10^-3 torr) so that once that pressure is achieved (and thus kept there by the roughing process) the roughing process can be ended and a determination if additional purging or roughing is needed.
With respect to claim 2, Takashi does not teach before the temperature increasing process, stopping an operation of the cooler.
Lessard teaches that in a regen process (figure 5) that the first step is to turn off the cryogenic refrigerator before turning any heaters on, Column 5, lines 35-36).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Lessard to have prior to the temperature increasing process stopped operation of the cooler of Takashi since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby it would be common knowledge in the art that by turning off the cooler would be a first step in increasing the temperature to allow the heating process to occur without continuing to provide cooling that the heaters would have to heat against.
With respect to claim 3, Takahashi as modified teahces wherein the pressure at which solid state ice can sublimate into gas state vapor ranges from 10^-2 to 10^-3 torr (as modified this is the pressure at which the pump is brought to).
With respect to claim 4, Takahashi teahces wherein the roughing process includes maintaining a pressure inside the cryopump vessel to be equal to or lower than the pressure at which solid state ice can sublimate into gas state vapor by opening the roughing valve (the pressure is brought to the claimed range by opening the valve as the roughing is done through the roughing valve which means it is open and at least maintained for some time).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi/Lessard/Fakuda/Aoki/Cassello and further in view of Yatsu et al (US PG Pub 20220397108), hereinafter referred to as Yatsu.
With respect to claims 5-6, Takahashi as modified does not teach closing the roughing valve when the temperature of the first panel reaches a predetermined temperature after the roughing valve has been opened, wherein the predetermined temperature ranges from 250 K to 300 K.
Yatsu teaches that a first temperature sensor can measure the temperature of a first cryopanel unit and generate a signal including a rough valve control signal to the rough valve (paragraph 114) and if a first temperature measurement reaches the rough valve is closed, the first temperature measurement which can be 250 K (paragraphs 130-131).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Yatsu to have in Takahashi closed the roughing valve when a temperature measurement signal is sent that corresponds to the first panel being at 250 K since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby setting a condition where when the rough valve is open and a temperature is reached (which the valve would have to be open to first close) would have been common knowledge in the art so that a purge process can begin as part of a purge, rough cycle when the overall purge process is not complete (this is the condition described by Yatsu paragraphs 131-138)
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi/Lessard/Fakuda/Aoki/Cassello and further in view of Bartlett (US Patent No. 5375424).
With respect to claim 7, Takashi as modified does not teach maintaining the temperature of the first panel at a preset temperature by using the first heater; and maintaining the temperature of the second panel at a preset temperature by using the second heater.
Bartlett teaches that during a regeneration process the first state is warmed to a specific temperature during regeneration to minimize collection of liquified gases thereon after gases are released form the second stage and the second stage is held to a second temperature to shorten cool down time which heating is done by heaters during regeneration (Column 5, lines 1-23). The temperatures as described can be considered preset temperatures as they are already determined in the prior art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have when heating the first and second panel of Takashi as modified with respective heaters based on the teaching of Bartlett to maintain them at set temperatures since it has been shown that combining prior art elements whereby using the heaters to maintain the respective panels at set temperatures would have been common knowledge in the art based on the desired conditions during the operations of the heaters as well as the operations after heating to ensure continued operation as desired after the heaters are no longer used.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN M KING whose telephone number is (571)272-2816. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 0800-1700.
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 5712726681. 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.
/BRIAN M KING/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763
Prosecution Insights