DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment of April 10, 2025 which amended claims 2-16, the abstract and provided a substitute specification including amendments.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “13” for the sealing member has been used to designate both what appears to be the solenoid/actuator (see Figs. 1 and 2A) and what is understood to be the valve member (see Fig. 2B) or rubber pad (Fig. 2A). 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 because: 1) Fig. 2b should be cross-hatched so that the solid spaces and the open spaces may be clearly differentiated; and, 2) the lead line for the valve body should be clearly drawn to the body portion instead of the outer radial surface of the opening (see annotated portion of Fig. 1 below). 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
152
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract should not include legal phraseology, such as “comprising”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 3-5 set froth that the sealing mechanism includes “an actuator configured to move the sealing mechanism between an open position…and a closed position”, since an element can’t moved itself (and the actuator is part of the sealing mechanism), language such as “an actuator configured to switch the sealing mechanism between an open position…and a closed position”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 1 and 2 “wherein the inlet valve comprises” should be “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of each of the claims “move” should be “switch”. Appropriate correction is required.
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: the “sealing mechanism” 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 § 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 1-16 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.
In claim 1, and claims 2-16 dependent therefrom, the claim limitation “sealing mechanism” 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. As noted above there are conflicting uses of the reference numeral 13 throughout the drawings; this conflicting use of the reference numeral and the lack of a clear description of what structures make-up the sealing mechanism make it unclear if the sealing mechanism is a collection of parts (such as the solenoid coil, the armature, the spring and the valve member/rubber pad) or a single element (such as just one of the noted elements). For purposes of examination it will be assumed that the sealing mechanism is the collection of elements represented by the solenoid coil, the armature, the spring and the valve member/rubber pad. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, as understood, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Hiraga et al (USPN 4,468,178).
With regards to claim 1, Hiraga et al disclose a scroll pump inlet valve (37, 371) comprising: a valve seat (labeled in the annotated portion of Fig. 1 below) formed by at least one of a stator and an inlet cover (labeled in the annotated figure) of a scroll pump; and a sealing mechanism (371, 372), mounted to the stator or the inlet cover, comprising an actuator (372) configured to move/switch the sealing mechanism between an open position (371 moved away from the seat) in which a scroll mechanism (27,28) and an inlet port (34) of the scroll pump are fluidly connected and a closed position (shown in Figs. 1 and 7) in which the sealing mechanism engages the valve seat to seal the scroll mechanism from the inlet port.
PNG
media_image2.png
432
601
media_image2.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 2, Hiraga et al disclose the valve according to claim 1, and additionally disclose wherein the sealing mechanism is configured to cooperate with at least one of the stator and inlet cover to define a portion of an inlet passage (labeled in the annotated figure) of the scroll pump when the sealing mechanism is in the open position, the inlet passage defining a flow channel (labeled in the annotated figure) between the inlet port and the scroll mechanism.
With regards to claim 3, Hiraga et al disclose the valve according to claim 2, wherein the seat is formed by a perimeter of a portion of the inlet passage (labeled in the annotated figure).
With regards to claim 4, Hiraga et al disclose the valve according to claim 1, wherein the actuator comprises a solenoid coil (37).
With regards to claim 5, Hiraga et al disclose the valve according to claim 1, wherein the inlet valve comprises a valve body and the valve seat, the valve body (labeled in the annotated figure) and valve seat being formed by at least one of the inlet cover and stator (the valve body, valve seat and stator are formed from a single element).
With regards to claim 6, Hiraga et al disclose a scroll pump (Fig. 1) comprising: an inlet port (34); a scroll mechanism (27,28) formed by a stator (27) and a rotor (28); an inlet cover (labeled in the annotated figure); and an inlet valve as set forth in the above rejection of claim 1.
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) 15, 7-12, 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kosters et al (USPN 11,215m180) in view of Hiraga et al (USPN 4,468,178), as evidenced by Huang et al (USPAP 2022/0238332).
With regards to claim 15, Kosters et al disclose a rotary positive displacement main vacuum pump (46, see col. 6 line 12-17), disclosed as a liquid ring vane pump, having an inlet valve 48 controlled by a controller 50. Kosters et al do not disclose that the vacuum pump is a scroll pump having an inlet valve as set forth in claims 1 and 6.
As set forth above, Hiraga et al disclose a scroll pump having an inlet valve as claimed. Hiraga et al do not disclose the use of this scroll machine as a vacuum pump but such a use of a scroll machine is well known in the art, as evidenced by Huang et al (see element 406 and the discussion in paragraph [0046]).
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the scroll pump having the inlet valve, as taught by Hiraga et al, for the rotary positive displacement vacuum pump 46 of Kosters et al since scroll machines and liquid-ring vane machines are recognized as equivalence for their use in the art of pumping fluid in a vacuum environment and selection of either of these known equivalents to create a vacuum while having a regulated inlet would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06).
With regards to claims 7 and 14, Kosters et al in view of Hiraga et al teach of the vacuum pump system according to claim 15 including the scroll pump of claim 6, as set forth above, Kosters et al further teaches of control circuitry (50, note control circuitry is a broad limitation and the controller 50 of Kosters et al is said to receive signals and information related to conditions of the vacuum system and adjust the operation of the device; one of ordinary skill would have understood this device to be an electronic device having circuitry, such as a hard-wired circuit or a computer, or alternatively the examiner gives official notice that such devices are well known and it would have been obvious to utilize such a controller/circuitry given their ready availability and accurate control capabilities) configured to control the actuator to move the sealing mechanism between the open position and the closed position. Kosters et al similarly discloses a controller/circuitry 16 that controls the motor (see col. 7 lines 27-29) as set forth in claim 14 and the controller 16 being or including circuitry would have been taught or been obvious for the reasons set forth with regards to the controller of claim 7.
With regards to claims 8-12, Kosters et al in view of Hiraga et al make obvious the scroll pump and control circuitry of claim 7 as set forth above, further, Kosters et al discuss the material of claim 9 where, in col. 6 lines 18 through 35, it is described that in the starting process the motor/pump is turned on and accelerated to a high speed (the predefined rotational speed threshold of col. 6 line 27, claim 12) and once normal operating conditions (the lock chamber also being ready, claim 11) are met (see column 6 lines 32-34) the valve 48 is moved to an open position (col. 6 line 35). With regards to claim 8, the Kosters et al disclosure is directed to a vacuum pump system that repeatedly cycles thru creating vacuums in the chambers 40, 42 and repeatedly opens and closes the locks 43, 44 to have the material to be worked on delivered and extracted from the work chambers. Kosters et al disclose that at the beginning of an evacuation cycle the valve 48 is closed (see col. 6 lines 20-22), thus at the end of the evacuation cycle when the motor/pump is turned off the valve would either be closed or it would have been obvious to do so in order to get back to the beginning condition discussed for the evacuation cycle that is repeated.
With regards to claim 10, Kosters discusses that the lock cycle is “approximately 10 seconds” (col. 6 lines 65-67), that the evacuation cycle is approximately 5 seconds and from Col. 3 lines 30-40 make clear that the acceleration period can vary from 5%, 10%, 30%, 50% or 70% of the lock cycle, for example one second. Thus it would have been obvious to design the vacuum pump, and controllers 16, 50 to achieve opening at a predetermined time, such as the 1 second mention by Kosters et al, in dependance upon the vacuum chamber and lock chamber sizes and the desired cycle times.“[W]here 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 regards to claim 17, under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed (the structure of claims 10 and 12 would perform the method during operation), then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). MPEP 2112.02.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al (USPAP 2022/0238332) in view of Hiraga et al.
Huang et al disclose a vacuum pump system having a turbomolecular pump (404) and a scroll pump (406) arranged as a backing pump to the turbomolecular pump (see paragraph [0046]). Huang et al di not disclose that the scroll pump is a scroll pump including an inlet valve as set forth in claims 1 and 6.
As set forth above Hiraga et al disclose a scroll pump including an inlet valve as set forth in claims 1 and 6.
At the time of the effective filing date of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a scroll pump having an inlet valve, as taught by Hiraga et al, for the scroll backing pump of Huang et al since a scroll pump having a controlled inlet valve and a scroll pump without an inlet valve are recognized as equivalence for their use in the art of fluid pumping and selection of either of these known equivalents to as a vacuum pump would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art (Note MPEP 2144.06). Further, the use of the scroll pump with an inlet valve would give further control and adjustability to the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: while the prior art teaches of valves having pressure sensors upstream and downstream of the valve member, the prior art does not teach of a scroll pump having a valve seat and sealing mechanism as claimed; further comprising: a first pressure sensor mounted in the inlet port and a second pressure sensor mounted between the inlet valve and the scroll mechanism, wherein said control circuitry is configured to control the actuator to move/switch the sealing mechanism to the open position when the pressure measured by the second pressure sensor is equal to or below the pressure measured at the first sensor. The closest prior art to Kosters would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to attain such an arrangement. Kosters et al teach of a controlled bypass valve 49 at the outlet of the vacuum pump, analogous to the second valve, which would close and facilitate further pressure drop when the pump outlet pressure reduces to 1 atm by directing further pumping thru the backing pump 47. In Kosters et al the instructions to control opening of the inlet valve are all based upon pump speed, the evacuation time frame and the ready state of the lock chamber. Nothing in Kosters et al would lead one of ordinary skill to move/switch the sealing mechanism to the open position when the pressure measured by the second pressure sensor is equal to or below the pressure measured at the first sensor.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Myneni and Arami et al disclose vacuum systems and Sato et al disclose a scroll pump with an inlet valve.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES G FREAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4827. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri: 8:00 - 5:00.
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.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
CGF, March 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights