Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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.
Claims 1-5 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.
Claim 1 recites “temperature measuring unit” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) for the using the nonce term “unit” with the function of temperature measuring but the specification does not provide any of the required, structure material or acts for the temperature measuring unit and as such it is considered to lack written description.
Claim 1 recites “monitoring unit” which is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) for the using the nonce term “unit” with the function of monitoring but the specification does not provide any of the required, structure material or acts for the monitoring unit and as such it is considered to lack written description.
Claims 2-5 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high-pressure” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high-pressure” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purpose of examination, as long as the compressor is present to pressurize the helium, the limitation is considered to be met..
Claim limitation “temperature measuring unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification and drawing do not provide any of the required structure, material or acts for the temperature measuring unit. For the purpose of examination, as long as there is a component that can measure the temperature, the limitation is considered met. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim limitation “monitoring unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification and drawing do not provide any of the required structure, material or acts for the temperature measuring unit. For the purpose of examination, as long as there is a component that can provide the monitoring, the limitation is considered met. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 5 recites “the controller is configured to perform a regeneration process” which is considered indefinite as it is not clear what it is configured to perform a regeneration process on. For the purpose of examination, this limitation is understood that the controller is configured to perform a regeneration process on the cryopump.
Claims 2-4 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
temperature measuring unit in claim 1,
monitoring unit in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han (KR20180119069), hereinafter referred to as Han and Oikawa (JP2009250148), hereinafter referred to as Oikawa and further in view of Gao et al. (US PG Pub 20230417466), hereinafter referred to as Gao.
With respect to claim 1, Han teaches a cryopump system (Figure 1, 3) including a cryopump (100, paragraph 28) and a compressor (compressor 500) configured to supply a high-pressure helium refrigerant to the cryopump (helium is the fragrant compressed and sent to the cryopump, paragraph 28), comprising:
a temperature measuring unit configured to measure a temperature of the cryopump (temperature sensing unit, paragraph 28)
a unit configured to monitor whether the temperature a predetermined second reference temperature (control unit compares the temperature of the cryo pump detected by the temperature sensing unit to compare it with the optimal temperature to determine whether the temperature of the cryo pump is below the optimal temperature, paragraph 57, and if it determined the temperature of the cryo pump exceeds the optimal temperature as a result of a judgment by the control unit the frequency is increased, paragraph 63, which judgment that the temperature is above the optimal temperature is be also be a judgment that is has reached and then exceeded such temperature),
and a controller configured to increase the operating frequency of the compressor whenever the temperature of the second stage part reaches the predetermined second reference temperature (in response to the temperature being above the optimal temperature the control unit increases the frequency of the inverter, paragraph 62, which rotational speed of the motor, and thus frequency, is adjusted by the frequency of the power input from the inverter, paragraph 33).
Han does not teach that the measurement of the temperature and thus the monitored temperature is the temperature of a second stage part of the cryopump.
Oikawa teaches that a temperature sensor used to detect a temperature of a refrigerating unit in a cryopump can be on the second cooling stage (paragraph 17 and 20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the at the time the invention was filed to have based on the teaching of Oikawa for the measurement of the temperature by the temperature sensing unit of Han to have been on the second stage of the chiller in the cryopump (Han uses a two-stage chiller for the condensation panel, paragraph 5, which would be the second stage of the overall cryopump) since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby placing the temperature sensing unit on the second stage of the cryopump would be common knowledge in the art to ensure that the temperature that is operating for the coldest and ultimately primary operations of the cryopump was maintained at the desired temperature.
Han does not teach that the unit which does the monitoring is a distinct monitoring unit.
Oikawa teaches for a cryopump (paragraph 17) which has a frequency change in response to a temperature measurement that the control unit includes a frequency determination unit which receives the temperature information and determines the frequency based on the temperature and then transmits this information to a frequency converter (paragraph 48) which are both part of the overall control unit (paragraph 20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as filed to have provided a frequency determination unit (which is a monitoring unit) which sends a frequency to a inverter as in Oikawa in the control unit of Han as modified since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby providing the control unit with frequency determination unit which sends a signal to the inverter would provide a known and specific way to configure the control unit so that it has the components necessary for operation.
Han does not teach the controller is configured to incrementally increase the operating frequency.
Gao teaches that a frequency can be adjusted in response to a temperature and the frequency can be controlled based on that (abstract) whereby the adjustment of the frequency is done by changing the frequency one or more times based on a preset frequency difference to achieve the target frequency (paragraph 19) and that in order to quickly reach an operating frequency a preset difference should be as large as possible to decrease the number of times of increase to make the operation more stable (paragraph 83) Adjusting multiple times based on a preset frequency difference is incrementally increasing.
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 Gao provided preset frequency difference for increasing the operating frequency of Han multiple times to achieve the desired frequency 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 increasing the frequency incrementally can provide a controlled increase to quickly reach the target frequency to make operations more stable.
With respect to claim 2, Han does not teach an initial operating frequency of the compressor is from 40 Hz to 45 Hz, wherein the controller is configured to increase the operating frequency of the compressor to a range of 50 Hz and 60 Hz.
Han teaches that during operations the specific frequencies are adjusted based on the if the temperature is above or below the optimal temperature such that if the temperature is below, the frequency is decreased, and if the temperature is above, the frequency is increased (paragraphs 60-62). As such, the specific frequencies of operation are a result effective variable, based on the temperature measurements and past temperature measurements. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Han as modified to have the operating frequencies as claimed as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the initial operating frequency of the compressor is from 40 Hz to 45 Hz, wherein the controller is configured to increase the operating frequency of the compressor to a range of 50 Hz and 60 Hz as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955
With respect to claim 3, Han as modified teaches the controller is configured to increase the operating frequency of the compressor by an increment whenever the temperature of the second stage part reaches the predetermined second reference temperature (this is the operation as described above).
Han as modified does not teach the increment is 5 Hz to 10 Hz.
Gao teaches that the preset frequency difference can be set as needed (paragraph 58) and the number of times of frequency change is greater than 2 (paragraph 55) and that in order to quickly reach an operating frequency a preset difference should be as large as possible to decrease the number of times of increase to make the operation more stable (paragraph 83). Thus the increment of frequency change is a result effective variable and the increment amount is made to quickly achieve the desired frequency to make the operation more stable. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Han as modified to have an increment within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to required adjustment. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had increment be 5 Hz to 10 Hz as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
With respect to claim 4, Han does not teach wherein the predetermined second reference temperature is in a range of 17K to 20K.
Oikawa teaches that the second cooling stage Is cooled to about 10 to 20K (paragraph 19) and that the device is to keep the cryopump stays at a set temperature (paragraph 54) and depending on the configuration of the invention the range of temperature can be expanded (paragraph 55).
As such, the specific temperature for the optimal range and thus the predetermined second reference temperature is a result effective variable chosen based on the desired operating conditions. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Han as modified as it involves only adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to have had the predetermined second reference temperature in the range of 17 to 20 K as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955.
With respect to claim 5, Han teaches wherein the system is configured to perform a regeneration process after exceeding the predetermined second reference temperature (the regeneration process is a periodic operation, paragraph 7, and thus would occur at some time the cryopump exceeds the predetermined reference temperature).
Han does not teach explicitly that the controller is configured to perform the regeneration process.
Examiner takes official notice that it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed obvious to have had the control unit to cause the system to be configured to perform the regeneration process since it has been shown that combining prior art elements to yield predictable results is obvious whereby the control unit performing the regeneration would ensure that the regeneration is performed as needed by based on process parameters to ensure operation is maintained as needed.
Han does not teach the cryopump operates at 60 Hz after exceeding the second reference temperature.
Han teaches that during operations the specific frequencies are adjusted based on the if the temperature is above or below the optimal temperature such that if the temperature is below, the frequency is decreased, and if the temperature is above, the frequency is increased (paragraphs 60-62). As such, the specific frequencies of operation are a result effective variable, based on the temperature measurements and past temperature measurements. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying Han as modified to have the operating frequencies as claimed as it only involves adjusting the dimension of a component disclosed to require adjustment. Therefore it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have had the compressor operate at a frequency of 60 Hz when the cryopump exceeds the second temperature as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Thus as the regeneration process is periodic, and at some point the cryopump exceeds the second reference temperature and operates at 60 Hz, the control unit as modified would perform the regeneration process on the cryopump resulting in the configuration as claimed after that point as the regeneration process is performed after all cooling operations which would include that one.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yatsu (US PG Pub 20220397108) and Matsui (US PG Pub 20140260339) which both teach cryopump operations.
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